Cannaday Calls for Moratorium on Graduation Tests

State Rep. Ed Cannaday today called for a moratorium on new testing requirements for Oklahoma high school seniors, saying appropriate oversight is not in place.

“The entity charged with overseeing the testing process has never even met, which brings into question the validity of the entire system,” said Cannaday, a Porum Democrat who is a former school administrator. “As a result, I agree with fellow educators who have argued for lifting the requirement this year.”

High school graduation testing requirements were enacted in 2005 as part of Achieving Classroom Excellence, or ACE, law. This year’s seniors are the first to have to meet the requirement.

Under that law, students must pass four of seven end-of-instruction exams in Algebra I, English II, Algebra II, geometry, English III, biology or U.S. history.

At this week’s meeting of the State Board of Education, Jenks Middle School Principal Rob Miller asked for all Oklahoma students who have failed to pass four of seven end-of-instruction tests to be granted a waiver. Miller argued that the tests are not valid because an independent oversight group has failed to carry out its responsibilities.

In 2009, lawmakers established the Educational Quality and Accountability Board to oversee and govern the testing program. The group has yet to meet.

“Without the oversight board, the whole testing program can be called into question,” Cannaday said. “I believe Oklahoma students should not be required to meet graduation standards that have not been given the review required by state law.”

Bill for Hearing or Visual Impaired Students Sent to Governor

Senate Bill 1119 requires that school districts provide parents of students with auditory or visual impairment with written information during the individual education program process about programs offered by the Oklahoma School for the Blind and the Oklahoma School for the Deaf for which the students may be eligible.

School districts serving students with auditory or visual impairments also must make sure staff assigned to work with those students have access to resources provided by the Oklahoma School for the Blind and the Oklahoma School for the Deaf.

If approved by the governor the law will begin July 1, 2012.

Harvesting Aborted Babies for Research

Scott Fischbach, the director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life uncovered the information showing a clinical trial approved by the Food and Drug Administration uses brain tissue from aborted unborn babies to treat macular degeneration. StemCells Inc. will inject fetal brain stem cells into the eyes of up to 16 patients to study the cells’ effect on vision.

In its press release announcing the clinical trial, StemCells Inc. was careful to refer to the fetal brain material as “purified human neural stem cell product” or HuCNS-SC cells, rather than “fresh human fetal brain tissue,” a description which can be found elsewhere on its website.

“StemCells Inc. is not using embryonic stem cells. A five-day-old human being at the embryonic stage does not have a brain, but a fetus at 10 or 20 weeks of development with visible fingers, toes and ears has a functioning brain,” said Fischbach. “Developing human beings in the womb are treated simply as raw material for laboratory experimentation by StemCells Inc. and other companies seeking to monetize aborted unborn children.”

In the press announcement, StemCells Inc. calls the use of the brains from babies killed in abortions “truly unique.”

Federal laws, and many state laws, make it illegal to buy or sell human bodies or body parts. However, they can be legally donated for medical research and certain other legitimate purposes. In such cases, the supplier is allowed to recover from the recipient any reasonable out-of-pocket expenses that were necessary to fill the recipient's order.

Some abortion industry insiders, wanting to financially profit on the growing market for fetal tissue and body parts, have devised a scheme to circumvent these restrictions. This is how the system works:

1) A baby parts "wholesaler" enters into a financial agreement with an abortion clinic in which the wholesaler pays a monthly "site fee" to the clinic. For this payment, the wholesaler is allowed to place a retrieval agent inside the clinic where he or she is given access to the corpses of children killed there and a workspace to harvest their parts. In most cases, this retrieval agent is an employee of the wholesaler. In other instances, the retrieval agent is a clinic employee who was trained by the wholesaler.

2) The buyer - usually a researcher working for a medical school, pharmaceutical company, bio-tech company or government agency - supplies the wholesaler with a list of the baby parts wanted.

3) When such orders are received by the wholesaler, they are faxed to the retrieval agent at the clinic who harvests the requested parts and ships them to the buyer via FedEx, Airborne or a similar common carrier.

4) These parts are "donated" by the clinic to the wholesaler who turns around and "donates" them to the buyer. The buyer then "reimburses" the wholesaler for the cost of retrieving the parts.

On the surface, this system does not appear to violate the legal prohibitions against trafficking in human body parts since, technically speaking; no one is buying or selling anything. The loophole is that site fees and retrieval reimbursement amounts are unregulated. The law requires that such payments be reasonable and reflect the actual cost of securing the parts, but there are no state or federal laws which establish guidelines or sets limits regarding these payments. Additionally, no governmental or law enforcement agency is charged with overseeing the system.

This means that the wholesaler is free to set site fees and retrieval fees at any amount. Despite the fact that the baby parts business is teeming with profound moral implications, and despite the fact it has enormous potential for financial abuse, it is allowed to operate on the honor system.

It is certainly no secret that this sort of self-policing never works in environments where large amounts of money are involved. In this case, the result is that the corpses of children killed by elective abortion are now marketed like old car parts salvaged from the local junkyard. Rhetoric like "site fees," "donations," and "retrieval reimbursement costs" are simply code words designed to conceal that fact.

DHS to privatize community-based out-of-home placement services

Senate Bill 1398 requires on or before July 1, 2013, the Department of Human Services to privatize all types of community-based out-of-home placement, including traditional foster care, kinship care, emergency foster care, contract foster care, and therapeutic foster care.

The Department shall select and contract with private child placing agencies licensed by the Department to provide community-based out-of-home placement services.  In contracting with private agencies to perform these services, the Department shall expend funds in an amount equivalent to the percentage of the Department’s budget that is currently dedicated to those services as performed by the Department.

Child placing agencies selected by the Department shall recruit, train, and support foster care families.  In the performance of such duties, child placing agencies shall maintain the Bridge philosophy which seeks to view practice through the eyes of the child and ensure that children in care maintain connections to their kin, culture, and community while in out-of-home care.

The bill has passed the Senate with a 36 to 1 vote and is now in the House Appropriations and Budget Committee.

Potential advantages of managed care in child welfare include fiscal incentives that support permanency goals and discourage long-term foster care, while potential disadvantages include the lack of control over access, conditions, and interventions that are characteristic of other managed care systems. Read Privatization of foster care in Kansas: a cautionary tale for a small group study on the subject.

Childwelfare.org has a number of studies on effects of privatization here.

School Choice in Oklahoma

Public School Choice

In Oklahoma, the state has two limited open enrollment policies: intra-district and inter-district open enrollment. In other words, students are permitted to enroll in any school within their neighborhood school district or in any alternative district in the state. The Center for Education Reform reports that Oklahoma has an average charter school law. Nearly 6,000 students attended the state’s 17 public charter schools in 2010.

Private School Choice

As of 2011, Oklahoma offers private school vouchers to low-income students via a tax-credit scholarship program. The program provides tax credits to individuals and businesses that contribute to scholarship-granting organizations. Additionally, in 2010, Oklahoma enacted private school choice for special-needs students. The Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program provides vouchers to families in the amount that it would cost to educate a child in a public school or a private school of choice, whichever is less.

Online Learning

According to the Keeping Pace with K-12 Online Learning report, Oklahoma does not have a state-led online program. However, two online distance-learning programs are sponsored by state universities: the University of Oklahoma Independent Learning High School, which is a diploma-granting program, and the Oklahoma State University K-12 Distance Learning Academy, which is a supplemental program. In addition, the state has opened three full-time online charter schools since 2010: the Oklahoma Virtual High School, the Oklahoma Virtual Academy, and as of fall 2011, the Oklahoma Connections Academy. During the 2010-2011 school year, 4, 456 students were enrolled in either full-time or part-time online learning programs.

Recent Developments

In 2011, Oklahoma passed legislation to provide scholarships for low-income students via a new tax-credit scholarship program. The program provides tax credits to individuals and businesses that contribute to scholarship-granting organizations.

Basics

Open enrollment allows students to attend a public school district other than their district of residence. Students who are deaf or hearing impaired may apply to transfer at any time during the school year to a school with a specialized deaf education program. The Oklahoma law states that each district must develop a policy of standards for acceptance of nonresident pupils which may include capacity. Athletic ability (in addition to academic ability, other extracurricular ability, or disability) may not be used as admissions criteria. Nonresident students are not eligible for extramural athletic competition for one year following transfer.

What it really means

According to the School Choice - Oklahoma State Department of Education Toolkit FAQ’S:

1. What are Public School Choice options for parents?

Public School Choice is the opportunity for eligible families to select another public school in the district for their children to attend. Public School Choice is offered to parents whose children are attending a school in the first or second year of School Improvement, Corrective Action, or Restructuring. Parents must be offered this option no later than the first day of the school year.

2. Which children qualify for School Choice?

All students in a Title I school in School Improvement, Corrective Action, or Restructuring are eligible to participate. In providing students the option to transfer to another public school, the district will give priority for transportation to the lowest achieving eligible children from low-income families in cases where there are insufficient funds to serve all the students whose parents request these services. However, all eligible students who request transfers should be allowed to transfer.

3. How do parents know if a school is offering School Choice options?

When a school is identified as a school in the first or second year of School Improvement, Corrective Action, or Restructuring, the district or school will notify parents of their Public School Choice options. Parents may send their child to another public school in the district that is currently making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

4. What is the cost of School Choice?

School Choice transportation is provided at no cost to the parents.

Title I school in School Improvement, Corrective Action, or Restructuring

Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring are ranked based on students scoring proficient or advanced on state reading and mathematics assessments, all Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring were ranked based on the percent of students scoring Proficient or Advanced for five years on the state reading and mathematics assessments used for AYP determinations. These percents included all FAY (Full Academic Year) students who took tests administered through the Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests, Oklahoma Modified Alternative Assessment Program, and the Oklahoma Alternative Assessment Program.

Parents can determine if their child's school is a "Title I school" by searching the Public Schools database supplied by the National Center for Education Statistics.

To find information about the Title I status of your child's school:

1. Visit the National Center for Education Statistics search page.

2. Enter the school name in the "name" field.

3. Click "Public Schools" under "Institutions."

4. Click "Search."

5. Click on the School name in the search results.

6. Click on "More information" at the top of the school data page.

7. The school's Title I status is listed in the "School Characteristics" section of the page.

Conclusion

Oklahoma has a limited school choice program. Only students in a Title I school in School Improvement, Corrective Action, or Restructuring are eligible to participate.  This means you may have to keep your child in a school that under-performs for a number of years before they are eligible for a transfer.

A “money follows the child” system would in effect make the public schools for K-12 like universities in which they would have to compete for funding. The better the schools perform the more parents would want their children there. This plan will cut across all income ranges in which the funding that would have been in a local lower performing school would allow the parent to send the child to a higher performing school. Schools and teachers would be accountable to provide better education for all children regardless of location.  Schools that fail to provide a good education would fail and possibly close. This would provide quite the incentive to provide an excellent atmosphere for learning and growth of our children.

The NEA states in their case against vouchers "True equity means the ability for every child to attend a good school in the neighborhood." If the neighborhood school has to perform well to compete then every child can attend a good school in their neighborhood.

 The opposition claims it will cause public schools to close. In truth it will be an incentive for the public schools to exceed the performance of private schools in order to succeed. The funds could be limited to various public and charter schools rather than private ones. We all want our children to have the best education possible be it in a public or private institution.  In order to make it happen we the people must make it happen.

Family Law Process Harming Children

OKLAHOMA CITY (October 20, 2011) – Oklahoma’s family law is dangerously failing the children it is supposed to protect, leading some lawmakers to consider reform of both divorce statutes and the foster-care system.

Following a recent legislative study, state Rep. Mark McCullough said it is clear that “no fault” divorce is a failed policy.

“I respect the views of those who argue that no-fault divorce creates less havoc than the alternatives, but I question that orthodoxy,” McCullough said. “There is very little in the divorce process that is even remotely connected to the interest of the children.”

State Rep. Jason Nelson, R-Oklahoma City, who grew up a child of divorce, said his experiences with the system were life changing, negative and all too typical.

“When you get down to it, our current divorce system is a racket that enriches attorneys and makes children and communities poorer,” Nelson said. “Divorce scars children and leaves them emotionally disfigured. The current divorce laws are perverse and they are destroying children and our society. If the best interests of children were actually taken into consideration the divorce rate would be considerably less.”

During the study, one legal practitioner estimated that that vast majority of disputed custody cases are due to one parent trying to reduce the amount of child support payments.

James Reid, an Oklahoma City attorney, told lawmakers of the challenges he faced representing a client who sought to have custody modified due to concerns of serious child abuse by the former wife’s new boyfriend. The process drug out for eight years without court resolution and involved nine judges and multiple DHS investigations.

Another individual, Chris Gregory, told lawmakers he has spent over $160,000 on attorney’s fees (including paying for his wife’s lawyer) during a divorce case that has been ongoing for three years.

In cases involving termination of parental rights, Oklahoma Supreme Court rulings have required that that there must be due process, and a clear and convicting standard of proof.

However, Oklahoma is one of only 10 states where the right to a jury trial is part of that process, which can dramatically increase the time involved and turmoil for children.

Furthermore, even when children are removed from the home, state policies often prevent reasonable outcomes.

At McCullough’s study, several foster parents told lawmakers of problems they had attempting to adopt children due to Oklahoma’s convoluted law and continuing problems with the Department of Human Services.

Foster parents Keith and Tammy Winn told lawmakers they were given custody of a child in April 2010, due in part to the mother’s meth addiction.

When the Winns attempted to adopt the child, DHS fought that effort and continued to push reunification with the birth mother who continued to test positive for drug use and had not shown interest in the child.

Floyd McKee, a Baptist pastor who took in three foster children, also told lawmakers of similar problems. When he attempted to adopt the children he took in, the adoption/parental termination process took five years.

“It seems DHS policy is reunification at all costs,” McCullough said. “State law does not require them to do that. That is a policy decision made at the agency level. Clearly, we need to reform the law to prevent such mindless bureaucracy from ignoring the best interest of a child in the future.”

Another problem in the system is that judges are overloaded, officials noted.

Currently, there are five judges in Oklahoma City handling family court. Those five judges have overseen 3,600 cases so far this year.

In Tulsa County, there are over 400 divorces are filed every month and 52 percent involve children.

Mike Jestes, executive director of the Oklahoma Family Policy Council, urged lawmakers to devote more state dollars to prevention of family disintegration and also urged them to fix the foster-care system in Oklahoma.

McCullough said potential reforms should progress along two tracks. First, he called for limited consideration of fault in divorce proceedings. And in cases where a parent is abusing and neglecting children, McCullough said there must be immediate consequences and swift termination of parental rights.

“There need to be penalties that disincentivize courtroom strategies that traumatize children, and there must be swift consequences for the worst cases involving parents who abuse or severely neglect their children,” McCullough said. “Obviously, our first goal as policymakers is to create an environment conducive to family survival. However, when things don’t work out, the legal process needs to be objective, efficient and prioritize the needs of the child. Our current laws don’t meet that standard and innocent children are the ones paying the price.”

Opposition to “Common Core” Education Standards

OKLAHOMA CITY (October 10, 2011) – State Rep. Sally Kern said today that lawmakers should oppose adoption of “common core” academic standards to prevent greater federal encroachment into state issues.

“The federal government has a horrible record of managing programs on the federal level yet many conservatives, in their rush to reform education, now think that putting the federal government in charge of education will improve it,” said Kern, an Oklahoma City Republican who is a former public school teacher. “Two key Republican principles are local control and limited government.  Now we want to turn education over to the federal government to establish common core standards that will have to be followed 100 percent. Supporters note the federal government will allow states to add 15 percent of their own standards to meet our state’s needs. How gracious of them to give us a whole 15 percent.  Would Oklahomans be thrilled if the federal government allowed us to only keep 15 percent of the money we earn?  I don’t think so.”

Kern recently led a study examining potential adoption of “common core” standards. At that meeting, Lindsey M. Burke, senior policy analyst for education at the Heritage Foundation, urged lawmakers to oppose the federal standards.

“While many experts now examine the federal track record on education and conclude that decentralization – not further federal control – is more likely to improve outcomes, the Obama administration has not concluded that the federal role in education has failed,” Burke said in a prepared statement. “Instead of supporting states as laboratories of reform, the administration has coerced states into the standardization of content, pushing a one-size-fits-all approach to standards and tests.”

She warned lawmakers that the proposed “common core” standards are not rigorous, particularly in the area of mathematics.

Jennie White, president of Restore Oklahoma Public Education, also urged lawmakers to reject the standards, saying they would effectively direct curriculum choices in all state schools.

White also predicted implementation of the standards would have significant associated costs for the state. According to studies she cited, the projected unfunded cost to California is projected to be $1.6 billion, Washington state is expected to spend an additional $2.1 million, and Missouri may reportedly have to spend $750 million. White said Texas rejected adopting the standards due in part to an associated estimated cost of up to $3 billion.

Kern said the study demonstrates that Oklahoma should not adopt the national education standards.

“I am puzzled that our Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction and many Oklahoma Republican state representatives are against Obama Care but seem to have no problem with Obama education,” Kern said. “Both are a tremendous overreach of the federal government.

“One of my presenters was a policy analyst with Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is the premier conservative organization in America.  Yet, our state superintendent called into question this group’s integrity by saying their presentation contained misinformation. The Heritage Foundation did not get to the prestigious status they have today by putting forth misinformation. I have asked Dr. Barresi to respond in a week with documentation showing where my presenters gave misinformation.”

Charter School Bills Passed Into Law

On May 9, 2011 Governor Fallin signed two bills related to Charter schools into law.

The committee substitute to Senate Bill 256 requires that any charter school that leases property receives current government lease rates. Enactment may lead to more favorable lease rates for charter schools, thereby saving operational dollars.

Senate Bill 445 clarifies that students who reside in a school district where a charter school is located are not required to obtain a transfer to attend the charter school in the school district of residence.

The measure allows charter schools to enroll emergency transfer students.

OK Governor Signs Update to Reading Sufficiency Act

Today, May 4, 2011 Governor Fallin signed SB 346 into law. The committee substitute to Senate Bill 346 specifies that starting with students entering first grade in the 2011-2012 school year, the program of reading instruction must include provisions of the READ Initiative adopted by the school district, as instructed in the measure.

Starting with students entering the first grade in the 2011-12 school year, if a reading deficiency is not remedied by the end of third grade, as demonstrated by scoring at the limited knowledge level on annual assessments, the student must be retained in third grade.

Districts must notify parents their child has a reading deficiency, services provided and that the student will be retained if the deficiency isn’t remedied.

Administrators may promote students for good cause such as limited English proficient students and students with disabilities. Students may be promoted if they perform at a certain level on alternative assessments or if they demonstrate mastery through a student portfolio. Students also may be promoted if they receive intensive remediation in reading for two or more years but still demonstrate a deficiency and were previously retained in kindergarten, first grade, second grade or third grade for a total of two years. Those students must have an altered instructional day that includes reading instruction specific to their needs.

Students not promoted must receive intensive reading instruction including methods such as tutoring or mentoring, an extended school day or week or year, summer reading camps or reduced teacher-student ratios.

Districts must have a policy for midyear promotion of students if necessary.

Districts must establish a Reading Enhancement and Acceleration Development Initiative to prevent the retention of third grade students and to offer intensive accelerated reading instruction to third grade students who failed to meet standards for promotion and to each kindergarten through third grade student who is assessed as having a reading deficiency.

The State Department of Education’s current funding for Reading Sufficiency programs will sufficiently cover the cost of remediating the students described in the measure through summer reading academies and other programs (such as the READ Initiative).  Costs of retaining students in the third grade will be offset by the reduction in fourth grade classrooms.  Additionally, the program may yield savings in reducing the number of referrals for special education.

The budget limits bill typically allocates approximately $7 million to the Reading Sufficiency Act ($3 million being alloted for the Summer Academy Reading Program).  With the absence of a budget limits bill last year, rather than proportionately cutting the RSA funding, the State Board chose to zero out the funding for FY-11. Additional 3rd grade materials would cost $193,725.

ACCEPTABLE BIGOTRY: PREJUDICE AGAINST THE CHILD IN THE WOMB

James Lankford on Abortion January 19 2011

Mr. LANKFORD. I thank my colleague from New Jersey for hosting this time in the House Chamber.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of one of the most basic functions of any government. Three thousand years ago, a mom taught her son, the king, how to be a wise ruler. We have her words written down in Proverbs 31, where she told him, ``Speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.''

   Two hundred thirty-five years ago, our founders wrote a despot king, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.''

   This truth that all people have the right to life is so obvious, so clear that they called it ``self-evident.'' But in America, millions of people cannot pursue happiness and they cannot appreciate liberty because their first God-given right was denied--life.

   In recent days, discussion from the left has turned to reducing the numbers of abortions. I applaud this line of thinking because it admits one thing--abortion is wrong. It destroys a life and it devastates a future of a mom.

   I ask: Why should abortion be reduced if it is just another medical procedure to remove some unwanted tissue from a woman? If it is just tissue, what does it matter? No one is saying that we need to reduce the number of skin moles being removed or reduce the number of warts that are removed, that that is unconscionable. Why? Because we know that a wart is unwanted tissue. But a fetus, that is a baby.

   We can use any euphemism, like ``fetus'' or ``dividing tissue'' or ``embryo,'' or just simply ``inconvenience,'' but no one comes to the family and says: How is the embryo? No one says to a pregnant woman or hears a pregnant woman say: Excuse me, I just felt the fetus kick. No one comes to a baby shower and says: Here is a gift for your inconvenience.

   Say what you want, split hairs all you want, we know that is a baby.

   Decades ago, we could not look into the womb and see the development of the child. People were told the child in the womb was just like a chicken embryo. But now, with 3-D ultrasound, we can look into the darkness of the womb and see a child kicking her feet, sucking her thumb. We can count her fingers and toes and watch their tiny heartbeat.

 At 20 weeks, we can look at the child inside and even say boy or girl. Why? Because it's a child, not just an embryo. The difference between an adult and a child in the womb is just time. They are a person who must be given their most basic of all human rights--life.

   I strongly support defining life at conception. I strongly support adoptions. I strongly support crisis pregnancy centers and Hope Pregnancy Centers, which are doing such a great job all around the country and all around my district in Oklahoma. It is time to cut off Federal funding for abortion.

   Why is it in America that taxpayers who are mortified at the thought of abortion are required to also give their tax money to fund abortions around the world?

   When a constituent comes to me and asks, Why are my taxes so high? I have to tell him, Partially because your government is spending some of your hard-earned money on abortion funding around the globe.

   Why is it in this Chamber today we can debate for hours if an infant should be guaranteed health care coverage, but yet some of the same individuals who demand insurance protection for that child would find no issue in killing that infant only moments earlier when it was in the womb?

   Earlier today, a clinic in Philadelphia was raided, where a physician was arrested for fully delivering infants 6, 7, 8 months into the pregnancy and for stabbing with scissors those children after they had been delivered--today.

   This is the United States of America. This issue is not about oppressing women or denying choice. It is about protecting children and honoring the self-evident truth that everyone is endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including and especially life.

   Almost four decades ago, individuals in this Chamber laid the foundation for a court ruling that has stripped the womb of its glory and its majesty. For decades since, legislators in this Chamber have protected bald eagle eggs, migrating insects, snail darters, and rare flowers, but we refuse to protect children.

   May God have mercy on our Nation, and may we awaken one day to the horror of what abortion policies have done to our Nation. We would rather protect our fundraising, our leadership and our convenience than protect the unborn child. This is not a difficult choice. It is a clear choice--and we should choose life

3 Grade Reading Requirements

House Bill 1550 requires that if a third-grade student is not reading at grade level, the student will be asked to participate in a summer reading academy or other program designed to assist the student in attaining grade-level reading skills. If the student does not participate, the student will be retained in third grade and a new program of reading instruction will be developed for the student. If the student does participate in the summer program but doesn’t successfully complete competencies, the student will be retained in third grade and provided alternative reading instruction. In addition, students who score unsatisfactory on the reading portion of the third grade criterion-referenced test will be retained in the third grade and provided alternative reading instruction.

Parents of students who are not reading at grade level or who scored unsatisfactory on the reading portion of the test will be notified that the student will be retained if the reading deficiencies of the student are not remediated, reasons the student is not eligible for a good cause exemption, description of the program of reading instruction and strategies for parents to help students.

Good cause exemptions will be limited to:

1. Limited English-proficient students who have had less than two years of instruction in English.

2. Students with disabilities whose Individualized Education Plan indicates that participation in the statewide criterion-referenced test is not appropriate

3. Students who demonstrate acceptable levels of performance on alternative assessments

4. Students with disabilities who have IEPs and were previously retained in kindergarten, first grade, second grade or third grade for two years.

5. Students who have received a program of reading instruction but still demonstrate a deficiency and were previously retained in kindergarten, first grade, second grade or third grade for two years.

Each district should have a process to promote students at midyear should they begin reading on grade level.

The bill also provides for reimbursement for remediation for students who are retained in third grade.

This bill passed the house and is now in the senate.

Oklahoma Child Protection Act

HOUSE BILL 1401 titled The Oklahoma Child Protection Act states that children are increasingly being preyed upon and coerced into illegal sexual relations by adults. The care takers, schools and health care providers are required by Oklahoma law to report suspected incidences of abuse. However, the legislature maintains, many of these go unreported and the perpetrators are not brought to justice.

There are documented cases of individuals other than a parent or guardian aiding, abetting, and assisting minor girls to procure abortions without their parents' or guardians' knowledge, consent, or involvement.  This includes transporting children across state lines to avoid parental involvement requirements in the child's home state. Such actions violate both the sanctity of the familial relationship and Oklahoma's notice and consent law for abortion. However, the mandatory reporter may not use his or her discretion in deciding what cases should or should not be reported to the appropriate law enforcement or designated state agencies.

Any person, other than an adult who has caused the pregnancy or allowed it to happen shall be liable for civil damages if they aid or abed in a person under 14 having an abortion without parental or guardian consent. The court may award damages to the person or persons adversely affected by a violation of subsection A of this section, including compensation for emotional injury without the need for personal presence at the act or event, and the court may further award attorney fees, litigation costs, and punitive damages.

Additionally, a fetal sample will be taken and sent for investigation. This will include DNA testing of the unborn child. This may be used as evidence in later cases. This procedure will allow investigators to possibly find the person who impregnated the child. This would also stop abortion as a means of eliminating evidence in rape and child sexual abuse cases. Failure of the abortionist to comply will constitute unprofessional conduct for the purposes of Section 509.1 of Title 59 of the Oklahoma Statutes and the person will be charged with a misdemeanor on the first count and felonies on subsequent convictions.

The act would relieve medical professionals and other mandatory reporters of suspected sexual crimes against children from any responsibility to personally investigate an allegation or suspicion.  Mandatory reporters must simply report allegations, suspicions, and pertinent facts.  Trained law enforcement or social services personnel will then be responsible for any investigation and for the ultimate disposition of the allegation or case. Failure to report a case will result in a misdemeanor charge.

Report on Children, OKDHS and Legislation Part2

As previously reported, there are a number of children in state custody that are victimized by the people charged with the children’s protection. Another concern raised in the report recently released by the Center for the Support of Families has to do with the placement of the children.  HOUSE BILL 1967 seeks to make changes in the placement procedures.

This bill requires OKDHS to give preference to relatives in the placement of children and report to the courts the effort made to that end.  Siblings shall be placed in the same home given the placement is in the best interest of the children.

The department will begin an immediate search for fit and willing relatives for children in need of temporary housing and notify them of the possibility of the need of a permanent placement as well.  The Department, while assessing the relatives for the possibility of placement, shall be authorized to disclose to the relative, as appropriate, the fact that the child is in custody, the alleged reasons for the custody, and the projected date for the child’s return home or other permanent placement as well as any other confidential information deemed necessary and appropriate to secure a suitable placement.

OKDHS will also have to provide and institute written rules for facilities under contract or operated by the Department. The rules will constitute the right of the child to communicate with family, relatives and former foster families where appropriate.  The child shall not be punished by deprivation of food, physical harm or solitary confinement. A child shall have constant access to writing materials and may send mail without limitation, censorship, or prior reading, and may receive mail without prior reading, except that mail may be opened in the presence of the child, without being read, to inspect for contraband or if authorized by the court for the protection of the child. The child will not be denied access to an attorney as well.

This law does not cover some of the concerns with multiple placements directly; however it is covered in seeking placement with a relative who would be willing to accept the responsibility of care of their relative.

It is believed this law in conjunction with the Oklahoma Child Protection Act and SENATE BILL NO. 674 requiring background checks for foster family care, which includes kinship homes, will allow suitable caretakers for the children in need to be found.

Some argue that the background checks will discourage some from becoming a foster parent or running a child care facility. Many others are sure that the checks will aid in the proper placement of the children who are in need of a stable loving environment. Since these children come from unstable and often abusive and neglected environments, it is important to quickly establish the permanency of a healthy home. The checks are intended to avoid placement in homes with people that have prior abuse and neglect charges.

It is important to note that the bill also requires the same checks for part-day programs, school-age programs, or summer day camps.  This reading implies the criminal checks would also be necessary for church camps, for example.  The costs of the investigations will be paid by the individual seeking to operate a facility, camp or foster home.

The bill will make it unlawful for anyone who required to register pursuant to the Sex Offenders Registration Act to work with or provide services to children or to reside in a child care facility and for any employer who offers or provides services to children to knowingly and willfully employ or contract with, or allow continued employment of or contracting with individuals who are required to register pursuant to the Sex Offenders Registration Act. Individuals required to register pursuant to the Sex Offenders Registration Act who violate any provision of this section, upon conviction, shall be guilty of a felony punishable by incarceration in a correctional facility for a period of not more than five years and a fine of not more than Five Thousand Dollars or both such fine and imprisonment.

A report from the Committee on Public Safety, dated 2 24 11 – DO PASS, As Amended.

The legislation reported here and previous articles are aimed at children safety. It is important to keep in mind that an allegation should never be treated as a conviction in these instances. Just because you are said to have committed and act does not mean that you have.  Stories of families being torn apart by false allegations can be found by a simple web search. We need to protect children but also be careful of inordinate laws of preemptive measure that will do more harm than good.

Report on Children, OKDHS and Legislation Part1

We have all seen the news stories of children in OKDHS custody or care that have been abused. A recent article here at OKGOVWATCH states that a new law, if passed would allow examinations of children suspected of being victims of neglect of abuse without the parent’s knowledge. Would this help in the reduction of such attacks on children?

A report recently released by the Center for the Support of Families shows 21.4 percent of children in the sample were the subject of a maltreatment allegation while in OKDHS custody that was substantiated or where there was sufficient concern to recommend services even though the allegation was not substantiated; 12 percent of children in the sample were the subject of a maltreatment allegation while in OKDHS custody that was substantiated. 78 percent of the alleged perpetrators of maltreatment of children in OKDHS custody were foster parents.

Only 8% of the children in the sample had been in a single, stable placement during their most recent entry into OKDHS custody. 54.8% of the children in the sample experienced four or more placement settings during their most recent entry into OKDHS custody; while 13.9% children experienced 10 or more placement settings. The most frequent reason given by OKDHS for moving children from the first to second placement was because they needed a less restrictive placement, raising concerns about the appropriateness of the children’s initial placements.

Many children moved from one short-term placement to another. Of children with at least two placements, almost three-quarters spent less than one month in the first placement. Of children with at least three placements, almost one-half spent less than one month in the second placement.

The report also showed that the appropriateness of the child’s permanency plan and steps taken to achieve the goal for the child were documented in less than two-thirds (62.3%) of the case plans, despite Federal and OKDHS requirements to include them in the case plans of all children in foster care.

Almost half did not have document services provided to the child despite OKDHS policy requiring this information in the case file.  Additionally, school performance records and health records were not found in 19% and 70% of the files respectively, even though federal regulations mandate this information be included in the child’s file.

In a case filed by Children’s Rights, one of the reasons given for these problems is high caseloads on the workers at DHS. They stated that DHS routinely assigns unreasonably high and dangerous caseloads to its employees that far exceed the national caseload standard of 12 to 15 children per caseworker. The OKDHS responded saying that OKDHS is one of only seven states in the nation that has a Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS).  This federally approved system documents caseloads of all child welfare workers.  The tracking system data verifies that permanency caseload workers generally have between 16 and 20 children per worker.

The most recent OKDHS report for FY 2009 shows that 952 or 5.88% of incidents of confirmed abuse or neglect came from a stepparent. Child care center employees were perpetrators in 331 cases, 238 were adoptive parents and 233 were foster parents. In total, 6% or 972 cases for FY2009 were from foster, adoptive or child care providers. In effort to change this, legislation has been approved by the Oklahoma House to require criminal background checks on adults living in a home where a foster child is to be reunited with a parent. The House voted 97-0 Wednesday for the bill by House Speaker Kris Steele of Shawnee and sent it to the Senate for consideration. Steele says the measure was inspired by the death of Aja Johnson, a 7-year-old girl who investigators believe was killed by her stepfather after he beat her mother to death last year. The stepfather then committed suicide.

The bill requires the Department of Human Services to conduct background checks on all adults before a foster child is reunited with a parent. Steele says background checks ensure that children in vulnerable situations are placed in a safe home.

SENATE BILL 674 requires background checks for foster parent eligibility assessment that shall be similar to the procedures used by the Department of Public Safety for determining suitability of an individual for employment as a highway patrol officer. These checks will be for employees of child care centers, persons 18 and older living in a child care facility and licensing to establish or operate a child care facility.

It is hoped that these changes and other related bills will bring a safer environment for children, especially those in the most vulnerable circumstances.  The Oklahoma Child Protection Act and HOUSE BILL 1967, which relates to placement of children in state custody, will be reviewed in detail in the coming days.