Speaker 1: Ryan Walters has caused many headlines since becoming superintendent of
Speaker 1: schools in Oklahoma. This time there are some consequences to
Speaker 1: him tweaking the curriculum. Jonathan has the story.
Speaker 2: Ryan Waters is the Oklahoma state Supervisor of Elections and
Speaker 2: he's trying his best to lie about the performance of
Speaker 2: the Oklahoma schools. First, he claimed he had nothing to
Speaker 2: do with lowering the standards on state boosting scores by
Speaker 2: thirty three percent, basically falsely. His underlings admitted that they
Speaker 2: closely supervised the revision process and did not allow any
Speaker 2: public comment, did not inform the school districts, and sought
Speaker 2: no public input Sadly, the boost and proficiency was a lie.
Speaker 2: When tested by the standards set to comply before the
Speaker 2: change that were set to comply with the federal standards,
Speaker 2: it is lower than ever. Oklahoma's forty ninth in education
Speaker 2: in the United States. They're only better than New Mexico
Speaker 2: and Alabama is actually better than them. It's like not
Speaker 2: a good seat, not a good site, not a good
Speaker 2: look for them. And this is an indirect attempt to
Speaker 2: destroy public education in Oklahoma and do it without anybody noticing.
Speaker 2: They're meeting their objective. As I said, they are forty
Speaker 2: ninth and the K through twelve, and not just overall education,
Speaker 2: but also in K through twelve. So a lot of
Speaker 2: times the universities bring that number up but not but
Speaker 2: not in the K through twelve here. So this story
Speaker 2: is by Noria Martinez Kiel the Oklahoma Voice and printed
Speaker 2: in the Oklahoma on eight twenty three, twenty twenty four.
Speaker 2: I yield to the panel discussion.
Speaker 1: Well, actually I was going to come to you, Jonathan
Speaker 1: at first, since you introduced the story. How does the
Speaker 1: lack of transparency in the changes to the test scoring
Speaker 1: effect public trust in educational assessments and government agents.
Speaker 2: Well, it obviously isn't good. But the problems, you know,
Speaker 2: the problem of lying this much about it, and this
Speaker 2: on the heels of his story. We also already covered
Speaker 2: about his putting a Bible in every classroom kind of
Speaker 2: puts his and as we know, conservatives hate public education.
Speaker 2: It doesn't serve their needs at all. It tends to
Speaker 2: teach people how to think, and they don't want anybody
Speaker 2: to think. They want them to just follow the propaganda
Speaker 2: and not actually think for themselves. But this is that attempt.
Speaker 2: But it's fraudulent, and it's going to end up really
Speaker 2: irritating a lot of parents who now have to contend
Speaker 2: with a school system that is not working for their
Speaker 2: children because they're deliberately trying to sabotage it. They're in
Speaker 2: a related move that we're not covering necessarily. But there's
Speaker 2: another action that mister Walters did was to tie the
Speaker 2: school's accreditation to the state to the test scores. So
Speaker 2: though this will help them with their accreditation, there are
Speaker 2: a lot of new rules underneath all these that well,
Speaker 2: let's just say, is backed by churches but opposed by teachers.
Speaker 2: So the checklist that they of these items is mandatory,
Speaker 2: or the school gets a deficiency on their accreditation, many deficiencies,
Speaker 2: and the school can be closed or taken over by
Speaker 2: the state. So this is setting up local school districts
Speaker 2: to fail, and they want them to fail because they'd
Speaker 2: rather have them all going to religious schools privately. So
Speaker 2: this is really a serious issue that we kind of
Speaker 2: cover in a lot of our stories. But how long
Speaker 2: are the parents of these kids going to tolerate this
Speaker 2: kind of stuff. Eventually it's going to reach critical mass,
Speaker 2: and I don't think they're going to like the results
Speaker 2: of that. Well, and that's kind of what I have
Speaker 2: to say on it.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, I'm always like a person that supports
Speaker 1: a critical mass to make chain. But I don't know
Speaker 1: if Oklahoma, or maybe the constituency there is really organizing
Speaker 1: to do that. I but then again, you know, I'm
Speaker 1: just expressing my ignorance because I really don't know what
Speaker 1: the advocacy and the activism on the ground to push
Speaker 1: back against some of the policies that Ryan Walters is pushing.
Speaker 1: But you know, Scott, I'm coming to you because you're
Speaker 1: an educator and you've been an educator for quite a time,
Speaker 1: and you know, I would like you just to, you know, answer,
Speaker 1: what are the implications of loring performance standards on long
Speaker 1: term educational outcomes for students that happen to be in Oklahoma?
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, if he had gotten away with it,
Speaker 4: the short term impact would have been to artificially inflate
Speaker 4: the effectiveness of their current policies.
Speaker 3: Scott, I have to say it.
Speaker 1: I do apologize he wi was gotten away with it
Speaker 1: if it wasn't for those meddling kids, those kids, it's.
Speaker 4: Old man Mahoney at the Haunted Good amusement park.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: Exactly, go ahead, continue.
Speaker 4: So he's artificially I mean it's it's a misrepresentation, obviously,
Speaker 4: but it's it's a deceit at the at the deepest level.
Speaker 4: He's you know, Jonathan was talking about how he's deceiving
Speaker 4: the public.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 4: They they lower the standard to make it look like
Speaker 4: they're being more effective. And I think I'm presuming here,
Speaker 4: I don't know this for a fact, but I'm presuming
Speaker 4: that it's too prop a up the other changes that
Speaker 4: they're doing to say, Look how effective we are now.
Speaker 4: Look how effective book banning is doing. Look how effective
Speaker 4: it is now that we have the Ten Commandments in
Speaker 4: the in the classrooms. Look how effective we are now
Speaker 4: that we're incorporating Bible stories into our day to day
Speaker 4: lessons and that kind of thing. And so it's just
Speaker 4: artificial inflation. What does the effect that What effect does
Speaker 4: that have on the education? It gives it. First of all,
Speaker 4: it guts one of the main tools that educators have
Speaker 4: to assess themselves and to assess how effective they are
Speaker 4: with their students, and that is assessments rights, its responses
Speaker 4: from testing, whether it be standardized testing, whether it be
Speaker 4: testing in the classroom, whether it be written paper tests,
Speaker 4: or whether it be activities or you know, it's just
Speaker 4: totally invalidating all of those efforts to improve. I think
Speaker 4: I don't think I'm going out on a limb here
Speaker 4: when I say that educators generally go into the field
Speaker 4: because they care, because they want to do well. They
Speaker 4: want to do they want to help children, they want
Speaker 4: to empower children, they want to you know, teach them things.
Speaker 4: They want them to be in an enlightened and educated citizenry. Right,
Speaker 4: it's good for the country, it's good for the individuals,
Speaker 4: it's good for the neighborhoods, it's good for the local government,
Speaker 4: it's good for it's good for everybody. And so so
Speaker 4: what this is doing is it's just taking away the
Speaker 4: effectiveness of those of those methods. As teachers, we like
Speaker 4: to talk about critical reflection. We want we want to
Speaker 4: look back at ourselves, we want to look back at
Speaker 4: what we're doing, and if we can change things to
Speaker 4: make them better then we can't, then we do that.
Speaker 4: And so this is not only is this covering up
Speaker 4: a problem that was there. I think Jonathan said they
Speaker 4: were forty ninth in the state. Yeah, rah rah, right,
Speaker 4: and so it's covering up a problem that was there,
Speaker 4: but it's also making the problem look like it's a
Speaker 4: good thing. And so it's kind of giving them a
Speaker 4: free path, or it would have, if it had worked,
Speaker 4: given him a pass to incorporate more of these changes
Speaker 4: that will also undermine the educational system even further. And
Speaker 4: like you both mentioned, I would have to assume that
Speaker 4: part of the goal at least is to get rid
Speaker 4: of public education. And so it's it's I mean, it's
Speaker 4: very callous, and it's very devious, and you know, it's
Speaker 4: almost almost too cruel to imagine to do something like
Speaker 4: to to take away a child's ability to become a
Speaker 4: better human being, to learn how to become a more
Speaker 4: productive member of society, to take away their power to
Speaker 4: make their lives better. And that's really what it's doing.
Speaker 4: That's the ultimate cost that education can pay can pay
Speaker 4: here is we will lose the effectiveness of the educational
Speaker 4: system we have, and we will in fact even roll
Speaker 4: back even further and make it even less effective.
Speaker 1: Well, Cindy, you are on the outside looking in, all
Speaker 1: safe and tucked away in a different country, but I
Speaker 1: know that you definitely pay attention to a lot of
Speaker 1: the things that are going on here in the good
Speaker 1: old us of a American apple pie the four by four.
Speaker 1: So anyway, forget the guns, Jesus, guns and babies, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: gotta get that straight, my bad guys. But you know, Sindy,
Speaker 1: I'm just wondering because, like you know, since you like
Speaker 1: pay attention to a lot of these things that's going on,
Speaker 1: what do you really think I think that you know,
Speaker 1: Scott alluded to it a bit, but can you expand
Speaker 1: on really what the motivation is behind the I call
Speaker 1: the Shenanigans in Old Colahoma. I'm not going to sing
Speaker 1: the rest of the song because I don't know the
Speaker 1: rest of the words, so I'm just not going to
Speaker 1: do it and embarrass myself.
Speaker 3: But what is it?
Speaker 1: What is the motivation behind, you know, doing the things
Speaker 1: that they are doing when it's quite obvious that well,
Speaker 1: I guess to us that happens to be on the
Speaker 1: other side of the looking class. This is detrimental and
Speaker 1: harmful to the kid.
Speaker 5: Yeah, on top of everything that Scott said, and I
Speaker 5: think was very very much on point, there's another side
Speaker 5: of this. Let's say that this worked and nobody noticed
Speaker 5: what happens to the students once they leave those schools
Speaker 5: and go to a university, they will be behind everyone
Speaker 5: else because they think they did very good and they
Speaker 5: think they have the level to be in a university
Speaker 5: and they don't. And what happens they feel like they
Speaker 5: don't belong here, and they feel bad about themselves, and
Speaker 5: then they feel like they're stupid and not deserving of
Speaker 5: more education. And I'm wondering if it's an intended purpose
Speaker 5: or if it's just a sad consequence. But I think
Speaker 5: that's something we need to take a look at, because
Speaker 5: if this keeps going in the future, whether it's this
Speaker 5: specific action or any other that's the Republican r are taking,
Speaker 5: the United States is going to be very very much
Speaker 5: behind in terms of workforce. In terms of education, of course,
Speaker 5: which is already the case, but yeah, workforce economics, because
Speaker 5: economics are linked to the workforce, which is linked to
Speaker 5: the education. And so I think it was a couple
Speaker 5: of years ago that China to the first place in
Speaker 5: terms of scientific commulications, and I don't see that specific
Speaker 5: story helping in this situation. So yeah, I think, as
Speaker 5: as Scott said, the Republicans survive on an uneducated base.
Speaker 5: That's how they've been surviving in the last two years,
Speaker 5: and so they do everything they can to keep that going.
Speaker 4: Last fifty years.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was very much. I would say that's even longer.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, guys, this is not in my notes,
Speaker 1: but I did read this little document called Project twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: And one.
Speaker 3: There are nine hundred and twenty five pages.
Speaker 1: Yes, well, I'm not going to say that I read
Speaker 1: through all nine hundred twenty five pages, but I did
Speaker 1: go through the contents, and I would go back and
Speaker 1: forth and skip and skim and things of that nature.
Speaker 1: But you know, one of the things that is in
Speaker 1: Project twenty twenty five, and it's also on you know,
Speaker 1: on the on the darket as far as like you know,
Speaker 1: platform items for people who happen to be conservative on
Speaker 1: the right is to get rid of the Department of Education.
Speaker 1: And I'm always like concerned because like one of the
Speaker 1: talking points is let's get rid of the Department of
Speaker 1: Education on the federal level and lead the decisions on
Speaker 1: how to run schools to the state, including having parents
Speaker 1: be able to utilize I guess text dollars to do
Speaker 1: school choice. But you know, I'm curious and to know,
Speaker 1: and especially since we're looking at stories like this from
Speaker 1: a person, a superintendent that has clearly demonstrated and said
Speaker 1: out of his mouth that he is a Christian national
Speaker 1: what type of really horrible, horrendous implications could this have
Speaker 1: if there is no oversight or regulatory body over education
Speaker 1: on the federal level.
Speaker 3: And do you all see.
Speaker 1: His actions kind of fulfilling that that wishless that the
Speaker 1: that the project has implicated. Jonathan, I'm going to start
Speaker 1: with you, and then Scott and then Cindy. I would
Speaker 1: like to hear your thoughts.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 2: First off, this is this is a process that they've
Speaker 2: been already implementing. As we see here the UH the
Speaker 2: accredit accreditation changes I look through kind of indicate this.
Speaker 2: So it would penalize districts that maintain active employment of
Speaker 2: teachers under investigation for certificate or vocation. That's one thing.
Speaker 2: There's quite a few. I'm going to skip some of them.
Speaker 2: But the other thing it would do is districts would
Speaker 2: not be able to receive state funding if they support
Speaker 2: or maintain certain diversity you know, DEI programs.
Speaker 3: UH.
Speaker 2: And so that means that kind of tells you where
Speaker 2: they're going with.
Speaker 1: The moment, John, I just want to actually tell the
Speaker 1: audience for those who do not know what de I means,
Speaker 1: that needs diversity, equity and inclusion.
Speaker 3: Continue.
Speaker 2: Please, yes, my brain had a hole for that just
Speaker 2: and would subject teachers to potential dismissal for sexual acts
Speaker 2: and this is not in school. This is sexual acts
Speaker 2: or acts that appeal to the period interest in sex
Speaker 2: as found by the average person applying contemporary community standards,
Speaker 2: or acts that excessively promote sexuality. They can be refused.
Speaker 2: Employment critics say it could be used as grounds to
Speaker 2: terminate teachers who engage in after hours activities like drag performances,
Speaker 2: if those performances were recorded and put online. And there
Speaker 2: are some people who say that that, you know, in
Speaker 2: my comments, I said, you know, this could mean that
Speaker 2: if somebody happens to catch you at home watching Rupe
Speaker 2: Paul's drag race, they could fire, you know, if they
Speaker 2: could twist this to make it firable New America.
Speaker 4: Welcome to America. Freedom to do.
Speaker 2: What you want in your own time, or they catch
Speaker 2: you watching a porn channel or something. You know, none
Speaker 2: of those things.
Speaker 3: I lived in Oklahoma.
Speaker 1: They would have fired me a long time ago, because
Speaker 1: I love that damn show. But you know, Jonathan, can
Speaker 1: you spend this a little bit, because it almost sounds
Speaker 1: like that what you're saying is that they're trying to
Speaker 1: penalize you for either being allied or being part of
Speaker 1: the LGBTQ community and also living your troop out lot.
Speaker 3: Is that what That's what I'm That's.
Speaker 2: What I'm they want to they want to suppress that,
Speaker 2: I'm quite sure because these rules are rather draconian if
Speaker 2: you think about it, And if districts fail to comply
Speaker 2: after receiving notice from the department, they will receive an
Speaker 2: accreditation deficiency as well. So it's like, you know, uh,
Speaker 2: it would strike from existing rules on local school boards
Speaker 2: that board members shall refrain from involvement or interference with
Speaker 2: the administrative functions of the school. That means the school
Speaker 2: boards could come around and say, you can't do that, No,
Speaker 2: we want it this way. Take the power out of
Speaker 2: the principle and the teachers and start my managing what's
Speaker 2: going on. And so yeah, yes, you want.
Speaker 3: To well follow, do you want to follow what gets worth? Sure? Sure?
Speaker 4: Yeah, okay, So let me give me a second here,
Speaker 4: I gotta catch my breath. Okay, all right too. So
Speaker 4: so you were asking about I'm sorry, could you repeat
Speaker 4: the question.
Speaker 1: Yeah, basically I was asking, you know, with Project twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five and the right basically allowing themselves to get
Speaker 1: rid of the Department of Education on the federal level. Yeah,
Speaker 1: what kind of implications could this have? Like detrimental implications
Speaker 1: could this have, you know, on kids, you know, especially
Speaker 1: who happened to attend public schools.
Speaker 4: I think that attacking the indirectly attacking the Department of Education,
Speaker 4: I think I'm not entirely convinced that that's either the
Speaker 4: main goal or even one of the main goals here.
Speaker 4: That might just be, you know, great, right, that's just
Speaker 4: a fringe benefit. I think what's really happening here, and
Speaker 4: again this is my opinion, but what I think is
Speaker 4: happening is that Oklahoma lawmakers they just want to operate
Speaker 4: in this fictional world, and and they want to they
Speaker 4: want to dictate how things operate, and they want to
Speaker 4: enforce that perception of that fictional world onto others as well. Gaslighting.
Speaker 4: That's I mean, this is really just high stakes gaslighting.
Speaker 4: And so the problem is the drawback to that is effectiveness.
Speaker 4: Educational effectiveness be damned, right, I mean it's like, that's
Speaker 4: not it's hard to imagine that that would be a
Speaker 4: consideration at all. It's all about how do we look
Speaker 4: and what can we do with it? And you know
Speaker 4: that is just misguided leadership right there. You know, it's
Speaker 4: it would be hard to make up something worse than that.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's just sacrificing the kid's futures in order
Speaker 4: to enforce this story that you know, they they can't
Speaker 4: back it up themselves, you know, their their religious stories.
Speaker 4: They can't justify that kind of belief and so but
Speaker 4: what they can do is they can kind of morph
Speaker 4: the rest of the world back into their viewpoint. And
Speaker 4: you know, like I said, education be damned, and it's
Speaker 4: it's really infuriating and asinine.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm going to give the semi last word to Sindy. Cindy,
Speaker 1: say what say you?
Speaker 5: I remember in twenty sixteen, after Trump was elected, I
Speaker 5: read this fascinating article explaining how and why Trump won
Speaker 5: back then in red states and mostly rural areas. It's
Speaker 5: because but by destroying the education system in these places,
Speaker 5: the only source of information the public has is the
Speaker 5: church and so if you don't have enough information about
Speaker 5: why you are in a city cuation, then the only
Speaker 5: source of information again comes becomes the church. And and
Speaker 5: that's the point of christoph fascism. It's to give back
Speaker 5: UH center place to to to the church, not in
Speaker 5: terms of not only in terms of you know, society
Speaker 5: and and and UH and and community and everything else,
Speaker 5: but also information because when you countrol information, of course
Speaker 5: you control uh the entire population. And I think it's
Speaker 5: uh it's basically what's what's happening here again, it's just
Speaker 5: more and more of the same stuff, just cultural information
Speaker 5: from uh, from the people you want to uh to to,
Speaker 5: not to lead, but to control. And so that's that's
Speaker 5: the only way to do it. To destroy education.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I definitely adhere exactly what you guys are saying,
Speaker 1: especially when it comes to if you want to control
Speaker 1: the mind of the people who happen to be under
Speaker 1: you destroy the institutions that educate them. And when test
Speaker 1: scores suddenly improve, but it's due to altered benchmarks rather
Speaker 1: than real student gains, it's a red flag.
Speaker 4: Even covering up actual student losses. It's not just false gains,
Speaker 4: it's covering up losses, and so it's even worse.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, it's it's covering up the losses that happen to,
Speaker 1: you know, come to those who are not getting the
Speaker 1: proper education that there's that they're supposed to get, oftentimes
Speaker 1: because the curricula and also the benchmarks for them for
Speaker 1: their achievements are being altered. But schools, parents and lawmakers
Speaker 1: deserve clear and upfront information because when it comes to education,
Speaker 1: the only thing worse than Perer performance is a lack
Speaker 1: of honesty about what the numbers really mean. So let's remember,
Speaker 1: if something sounds too good to be true, it might
Speaker 1: just be a change in the rules. Always ask what's
Speaker 1: the real score?