Public School Interim Studies

   Several dozen interim studies have been approved by the House and Senate leadership as of last week, which should begin in August and have work wrapped up by November 1. Education studies have been assigned to various committees, including the Senate Appropriations Committee and Education Committee for those interested in public schools. For instance, Gary Stanislawski, R-Tulsa, is running a study on "equitable funding for charter schools". This study was introduced in response to the belief that charter schools do not receive adequate and equitable local funding from the state. It is hoped the study will provide motivation for legislation to increase local and state funding for Oklahoma and corporate charter schools.
   Senator Ron Sharp, R-Shawnee, is running a study on "the funding formula for virtual 'charter' and brick & mortar 'traditional' schools". While Sharp's study sounds very similar to the Stanislawski study, as both will focus on the "funding adequacy" aspect for charter schools - the factual evidence presented may be strikingly different. The challenge for the public in determining what presented facts are real and what facts are not real will be difficult. I will attend the Appropriation Committee hearings for both studies and update the proceedings on this blog post, including the times and dates for any meetings.
   Senator Gary Stanislawski, R-Tulsa, is sponsoring another study in the "Education Committee" which takes a look at "virtual charter school performance". It is assumed that by "performance", Stanislawski intends to study virtual charter school letter grades (A-F), student graduation rates, drop-out rates, etc.
   Also in the Education Committee, Sen. Ron Sharp, R-Shawnee, will sponsor a study on "classification reform for OSSAA member schools". The Education Committee will study the facts surrounding the inequitable classification of OSSAA member schools, which has helped cause the "unlevel playing field". As in the previously mentioned approved studies, I will attend the committee hearings and keep all interested parties informed through this blog post and future articles. 

Pearl (not Janis Joplin)

   I believe our farmers and ranchers have one of the lowest paying and toughest jobs in the world. We (all farmers and ranchers) work 24 hours a day and 7 days a week in most cases, and barely make ends meet - dying young and leaving worn-out. My ancestors were farmers and ranchers, going back five generations in Oklahoma - and so am I. We're a dying breed though, as most young people don't follow in their parents footsteps anymore. It's for the best, I'm sure, as what self-respecting young person would want to work hard for very little compensation. One farmer/rancher father once lamented that he wished his daughters had married farmers. My question would have been "Why? Don't you know that they're much better off?". I think he knew that, but still... his heart was in farming a ranching.
   I just had to do one of the hardest ranch jobs I've ever done. I know it's not difficult for many people, but it was for me:
   Pearl was born in 1981, down on Rush Creek in southern Garvin County. She was a fine looking white brahman/angus cross, and had several brothers and sisters. Pearl grew up and produced dozens of calves, all for the benefit of one rancher. She never complained about the harsh living conditions (Oklahoma weather) and never wanted much grass. She never wanted anything in return for providing food for thousands over the years.
   Pearl was 37 years old when I found her Tuesday evening, July 24, just before dark. She was down and couldn't get up and near death. I tried to make her comfortable during her dying hours by giving her a little water (although she couldn't drink) and rolling her over. She just looked up at me with big brown eyes as if to say "Thank You, but I'm leaving soon." I then left her for home. I was sure that no coyote would end her life last night as her 500 lb. bull calf was left to stand guard. I was right, as she was still alive this morning, July 25, but I now knew what I must do. I was not going to let her bake in the afternoon sun, and die sometime later. It was the toughest job I've ever had to do... but I know she is now in heaven. God Bless Pearl...
 

Liz George for House District 42

   I'm not in the habit of endorsing candidates for state office just because a candidate belongs to a specific party, but because a candidate believes in supporting specific causes. As a nation and state, problems often arise because many often vote "straight party" down the line of candidates. In Oklahoma, voters are split about 50% democrat and 50% republican with much smaller percentages of libertarian and independent (maybe 1%). Public school teachers in Oklahoma approximately reflect the 50-50 split among registered voters as (D) or (R). If all teachers vote straight party this fall, many will vote for the anti-teacher candidate in any particular race. But that's not going to happen, as several corporate anti-teacher candidates have been exposed... and many pro-public school candidates are running to take their place. These public school and teacher advocate candidates are republican and democrat, conservative and liberal.
   In 2016, I ran for the House District 42 seat as a conservative republican (I registered republican in 1978, switched to democrat in 1995, switched back to republican in 2015, then switched to Independent in 2017, so technically, I refer to myself as a conservative independent republicrat.) I've always considered myself conservative because I believe in preserving our traditional social institutions (public schools)and our Constitution. I also believe the government should be frugal with taxpayer dollars, only spending on services for everyone.
   I'm a registered Independent, but am endorsing Liz George (D) for House District 42 (Garvin and McClain County). I know that Liz is a conservative (not corporate) public school, teacher, and student advocate - and will protect our conservative and progressive values. She will help provide additional funding for our public school students without raising taxes by stemming the outflow of taxpayer dollars to out-of-state private and corporate education firms.
   A fundraiser for Liz George, candidate for House District 42, is scheduled for Tuesday, July 31 from 6 to 8PM at Winter Creek Golf Course Clubhouse Drive - which is west of Blanchard. Good legislative candidates such as Liz do not depend on out-of-state corporate contributions in order to protect our traditional public schools and other public services. She only depends on those she hopes to protect - the citizens of Garvin and McClain County and all Oklahoma citizens. We need all traditional public school advocates' support if we're gonna win this thing.
 

The Duck - Epic Pyramid Unchained

   If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck.. then most likely it's a duck. An issue created by the just show me the money crowd is the apparent ponzi or pyramid scheme being employed by specific charter groups. "A Ponzi scheme is a form of fraud in which a purported businessman lures investors and pays profits to earlier investors using funds obtained from newer investors... The basic premise of a Ponzi scheme is to "rob Peter to pay Paul". A pyramid scheme is a form of fraud similar in some ways to a Ponzi scheme, relying as it does on a mistaken belief in a nonexistent financial reality, including the hope of an extremely high rate of return." Both Ponzi schemes and pyramid schemes are illegal, but there are differences - * In a Ponzi, the schemer acts as a "hub" for the victims, interacting with all of them directly. In a pyramid scheme, those who recruit additional participants benefit directly. (In fact, failure to recruit typically means no investment return.)... Pyramid schemes explicitly or implicitly assert that new money will be the source of payout  (bonuses) for the initial investments. A 'pyramid scheme' typically collapses because it requires exponential increases in participants to sustain it. Illegal pyramids generate revenue by continually recruiting new members (students). "The promoters may offer merchandise or services for sale - or may not - but the only significant revenues come from recruitment. Though a pyramid-style compensation plan is not illegal, it is illegal to run a business in which recruiting new people generates funds.
   Many traditional public school advocates believe that corporate charter schools operate illegal pyramid schemes because all participants, knowingly or unknowingly, can be identified in the charter pyramid operation. One example: EPIC Virtual Charter Schools...
Promoters - Owners (who call themselves superintendents) nationwide and a "registered agent" for Community Strategies Inc., a profitable non-profit.  The "promoters" at the top of the pyramid receive $millions of Oklahoma tax dollars, while those participants underneath receive the trickle-down.
Investors / Victims - "Oklahoma tax-paying citizens" who believe they are investing in an education service. (The tax dollars invested in the charter schools comes from our traditional public schools.)
Recruiters - "Teachers and other EPIC employees" who must continually recruit new students in order to profit. Teachers walk the hallways of traditional public schools recruiting students for enrollment. If an EPIC teacher can entice 100 students to enroll in the charter, then the teacher will have 100 students and can potentially earn a six-figure salary. In addition, if the teacher "recruits" only good students, they can potentially earn $thousands in bonus money.
Services provided to investors - "Public Education" which is provided to students. Oklahoma tax-payers will "invest" over $50 million in EPIC this coming year as this is its "state aid" package. Some of the $50 million will go to EPIC's superintendent, some of it will be paid to the registered agent, and very little of it will go to teachers and other employees. Some of the $50 million will also be provided to students for such "educational items" as private dance or voice lessons, private golf or tennis lessons, and approved educational field trips.
Enablers - "Lawmakers and other elected state officials who introduce and pass favorable 'Pyramid' legislation or are willfully blind. Those elected officials accept monetary gifts (campaign contributions) from the promoters in order to support the favorable legislation. This is the most critical aspect for "legalizing" the pyramid scheme - legislative funding and the acquisition of public funds. As an example, our "elected" state superintendent of schools has been the recipient of over $50,000 in campaign funds in order to protect and promote the charter school pyramid, and can be seen re-paying the contribution on the EPIC website.
   The only difference in participants of a private Ponzi or Pyramid scheme and a public one, is that in a public Ponzi scheme - the Enabler is added to the mix. When tax-payer dollars are used for funding the pyramid (instead of personal monies and investments) - the pyramid must have the buy-in, literally, of publically elected officials. To acquire the "buy-in" of specific officials which can be bought - the promoters (registered agents and superintendents) must literally purchase them by providing $thousands for state campaigns. In this way, every single participant (students, parents, teachers, administrators, corporate managers, registered agents, superintendents) gets a "piece of the pie". Everyone makes money except the Oklahoma tax-payer victims.
   Epic claims the provided services to the Oklahoma taxpayer is the public education that students receive. It also claims the purchased product for our tax-paying citizens, whether they have children in school or not, is a well-educated public school student. Oklahoma taxpayers have a vested interest in the products, as measured by "student success", they are purchasing from our public schools - both traditional and charter. A look at the accepted measuring sticks for purchased products reveals that:
* EPIC Charter High School had a 25% graduation rate for the 2015-2016 school year. This cohort graduation rate only led two other charters, Harper at 15% and OK Virtual at 22%. Of the 500+ public high schools in Oklahoma, EPIC was third from bottom. (Most traditional public schools had graduation rates ranging from 70% to 100%).
* EPIC Charter High School received 0 points for its College Entrance Exam category, which included 65% for performance and 19% for participation (2015-2016). One would think that the ACT participation rate would be higher for EPIC since a higher education institution sponsors the school.
* EPIC Charter School reported 100% student attendance during the 2015-2016 school year. This statistic alone is amazing, since EPIC has over 8,000 students enrolled. What makes it even more eye-popping is that only 25% of its cohort (grades 9 through 12) students graduated and only 19% of its eligible students participated in College Entrance Exams (even though sponsored by Rose State College).
 These three products or services are examples of what Oklahoma taxpayers have received for their investment into the virtual pyramid scheme...
   The promoters of the EPIC pyramid scheme have thus far avoided legal prosecution because they say their pyramid involves the sale of merchandise or services, which makes it "all perfectly legal". What makes a pyramid scheme illegal is when recruiting new participants (students and teachers) generates the revenue. I'm no legal expert, so I have some questions: Is it not "recruiting" when EPIC teachers are payed bonuses for "walking the halls" of traditional public schools in order to entice students to enroll in EPIC. Is is not "recruiting" when EPIC students are paid bonuses to "refer" traditional public school students? Is it not "recruiting" to actually deposit money into an EPIC student's "education fund" for buying private music or sports lessons? If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then many Oklahomans would like to see the responsible parties prosecuted. If the answer is "no recruiting has occurred", then the state of Oklahoma will soon be broke. Just like when the "corporate welfare schemes" of the 1920's and '30's almost ruined Oklahoma (generous federal subsidies were provided to corporate farmers from the east, which caused the Dust Bowl), when the last dollar is squeezed out of our tax-payers, only then will the corporate school reformers flee.

The Charter School Invasion and Its Acquisition of Local Tax Dollars

   In the July 7 edition of the Daily Oklahoman: Point of View: It's time to irrigate OKC's charter school deserts, Amber Northern (senior vice-president for research) and Michael Petrilli (president) of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, advocate for the acquisition of more tax dollars for charter schools. They say - "The biggest barrier (to charter schools obtaining more state and local funding) is massive funding inequality (between traditional public schools and corporate charter schools). State law doesn't guarantee charters any local dollars, which contributes to them receiving 36% less in total per-pupil than their traditional public school counterparts. On top of this, charters have less money and access to adequate facilities. Such policies dissuade able operators (millionaire developers) from opening new schools in the city, and make it difficult for the ones that are already there to expand ... There is, nevertheless, hope (for private and corporate acquisition of state and local tax dollars). Oklahoma can enact legislation that makes charter funding more equitable." (At the expense of traditional public schools).
   Before examining the facts related to Northern and Petrilli's outlandish claims concerning the "charter school desert" in Oklahoma - Diane Ravitch, in REIGN OF ERROR The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America's Public Schools, had this to say about charter schools:
   "Charter schools became the hot new idea in American education, beloved by advocates of school choice (vouchers) on the corporate right (and left). Corporate conservatives at the ..., the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and ALEC... realized that charters were the next best thing to vouchers. NCLB,led by Barack Obama and Arne Duncan, recommended charter schools as an option to replace low- performing public schools... Major foundations, including the Walton Family Foundation... and dozens of others lavished funding on the expansion of charter schools and charter chains. The U.S. Department of Education, led by Arne Duncan, required states to lift their limits on charter schools if they wanted to be eligible for the billions of dollars in President Obama's Race to the Top competition."
   I think the connections of the recent opinion piece to the corporate tax dollar grab are evident, but what's not so clear are the connections between the corporate reform movement and elected officials, which is usually money. The Oklahoma connection for the national institutes, profitable non-profits, national and world corporations, and U.S. Department of Education has been Brent Bushey, the Executive Director for the Oklahoma Public School Resource Center (OPSRC) mentioned in a previous article.
   The massive barrier spoken about by the Fordham Institute in the charter school desert is their lack of tax $billions. Again, they claim that charter schools receive 36% less funding than traditional public schools, which helps create the charter school desert. They are hoping this inaccurate statement will convince readers that Oklahoma charter schools are mistreated by the state legislature, and the only way to rectify this claimed funding inequality is by favorable legislation. This ALEC legislation will no doubt be forwarded during the next regular legislative session.
   Some facts which dispel the big lie that charter schools  receive inequitable state and local funding: A traditional public school (A) and a corporate charter school (B), both with 3000 students, receive state and federal funding. School (A) receives $6 million in state funding ($2000 per student), while School (B) receives $10 million ($3,333 per student). It appears as if the inequity exists for traditional public schools, not corporate charters - but this lone fact is just as inaccurate as stating that corporate charters receive 36% less in total per-pupil... As a matter of fact, School (A) received $4,000 in per-pupil revenue from state and local sources, which was more than the $3,333 received by School (B). (Note: Both schools receive the same amount in federal funding). In addition, School (A) just built a new high school for its students which local taxpayers voted to do, that accounted for part of that $4,000 in local revenue. For School (A), the $4,000 in state and local funds is used to pay utilities, bus transportation, counselors, nurses, maintenance of facilities, insurance costs, administrators, teaching assistants, etc... This reduces that amount down to approx. $2,500 which can be spent for teachers and other instructional needs. School (B) has none of the above necessary expenditures, so is able to spend $3,333 for teachers, administrators, and instruction. The cumulative effect (all revenue) of applying Oklahoma's school funding formula to both schools is that the corporate charter (often virtual) receives approximately 33% more than the traditional public school for discretionary  operating expenses. To be very clear - corporate charter reformers want more local tax dollars, so that corporate CEO's can become more wealthy.
   This is what the corporate reformers such as Brent Bushey, Amber Northern, and Michael Petrilli do: They convince local citizens, under the guise of corporate charters being mistreated, to increase their own tax bill - in order to irrigate charter school deserts!
   Northern and Petrilli go on to lament that "Of all the locales desperate for charter schools, portions of Oklahoma City are among the areas that need them most (areas ripe for accessing local tax dollars). What they do not say, however, is that the "inner city south area" charter school desert will quickly become a "charter school oasis" with an infusion of $60 million - for two new corporate charter schools. The $60 million in local property tax dollars (ad valorem) will come from the Oklahoma City Wheeler District and be used to fund the two schools... for OKC Public Schools. It's all a property tax "shell game", however, as the $60 million could be used by all public schools to pay for more teachers, fund teacher pay raises, and fund operational costs. Those that understand the Oklahoma public school funding formula know that the $60 million will ultimately come from all traditional public schools and only benefit the two new charter schools and the corporate developer. This is how the corporate shell game works: Normally, traditional public schools receive local ad valorem (property tax) funding from local taxpayers to supplement any state aid they may receive. This local ad valorem revenue is chargeable to a school's state aid, however, so the total funding received by the school is less ad valorem. For instance, if a school is calculated to receive $1 million in state aid based on it's number of students, and received $300,000 in ad valorem revenue the year before - the total state aid is reduced by $300,000. The school will only receive $700,000, instead of the original $1 million. The very real $60 million that OKC will receive to build the two new charter schools will not be chargeable to its state aid! If the $60 million were chargeable to OKC schools state aid, then its total aid would be reduced. The $60 million reduction for OKC schools would then be assigned to all other traditional public schools in Oklahoma... to pay for new teachers, etc. It's a corporate developer's dream! Conservatives and traditional public school advocates should be livid about this corporate welfare scheme!
   Northern and Petrilli assert that Oklahoma can enact legislation that makes charter funding more equitable. Translated from corporate rhetoric, this means - Corporations can buy lawmakers and other elected officials, who will pass favorable laws designed to allow corporate access to local tax dollars. It's becoming more clear to determine what motivates "out-of-state" corporate and profitable non-profits - follow the money to the next blog...       
 

Reign of Terror

   I mentioned in my last column/post here that one should read several books before voting in the August 28 primaries - in order to help conservatives and public school advocates decide who to vote for. It would be obviously be too much of a time investment to spend weeks researching candidates as to their potential public school support - for one or two elections. One may simply spend 5 minutes reading the following post to arrive at the same conclusions for voting:
   Anyone who regularly reads this column/blog knows that I often quote from the book Reign of Error by Diane Ravitch. I have two copies of the book... if I lose one, I'll still have a spare (LOL). I really received the second copy from Diane Ravitch herself. Several years ago, while attending an education convention, I waited in line patiently to meet Dr. Ravitch as she signed copies of the book. The book was being sold at the convention, and Ravitch had already addressed the several thousand public school advocates in attendance. Those ahead and behind in line had their books in hand ready to be signed. I had already owned the book for a couple of years and read it several times over, but did not bring it with me. As It came my turn to briefly visit with Dr. Ravitch, she noticed I had no book - so I explained I already owned one. As we spoke, she reached over to a copy, signed it For Jim, Diane Ravitch - and handed it to me. I only wanted to tell her how much Oklahoma public school advocates appreciate that she has stood up for our local public schools in her more than one dozen books. What is truly amazing was that there were several conservative Oklahoma Republicans in line with me (one republican representative directly in front of me) and several liberal Democrats.
   An excerpt from the concluding chapter of Reign of Error - The Pattern on the Rug, p. 321, states:
   "Conservatives should be at the forefront of the effort to oppose privatization because the public school is a source of community, stability, and local values. Conservatives do not tear down established institutions and hand them over to the vagaries of the free market or the whims of the financial and political elites. Conservatives do not destroy communities. What we are witnessing today is the Walmartization of American education, an effort to uproot neighborhood schools and Main Street businesses and outsource their management to chain schools and chain stores run by anonymous corporations. If they do not make their bottom line, they may pull up stakes and abandon the community, leaving it bereft, as many chain stores and charter chains have already done. Conservatives protect their community and its institutions. There is nothing conservative about the chain-store mentality that is being introduced into the control of schooling."
   This one concluding statement sums up much of the book for public school advocates nation-wide. Dr. Ravitch identifies the financial and political elites as corporates and non-profits that "have names that are appealing and innocuous, like the American Federation for Children (AFC), the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Chiefs for Change (state school superintendents), Democrats for Education Reform, Stand for Children, Teach for America, the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation,the Walton Family Foundation (WFF), ... The political elites "are Republicans and Democrats. They include President Barack Obama and Secretary Arne Duncan, as well as Democratic mayors in such cities as Newark, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Elected officials of both parties have signed on to an agenda that threatens the future of public education.
   Dr. Ravitch goes on to say - The leading corporate elitist funders (emphasis mine) of the corporate reform movement are the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which supports charter schools and test-based teacher evaluation; the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, which supports charter schools and trains urban superintendents (EM) in its managerial philosophy; and the Walton Family Foundation which funds vouchers and charters (EM). These wealthy and powerful foundations have overlapping interests. They subsidize many organizations in common, such as Teach for America (which recruits young college graduates to teach for two years in low-income schools), the KIPP charter schools ...
   Anyone reading the above excerpts may now reasonably ask - How does all this factual information apply to Oklahoma public schools and the Oklahoma political/corporate elite? Several groups mentioned above, including the AFC, ALEC, and WFF, have local and state branches which attempt to influence state legislators and officials into supporting profitable corporate bills or profitable corporate rules (in the case of elected state officials such as the State Superintendent of Schools).
   The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), according to SourceWatch, is a corporate bill mill... Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line, profits. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations, which usually involves support and contributions to state lawmakers campaign accounts. Corporate entities, state chambers of commerce, and profitable non-profits such as the Walton Family Foundation and Stand for Children (Vouchers) write checks to those state legislators who will front (author) their preferred state legislation. Diane Ravitch mentions ALEC time and time again as a major player in the corporate school reform movement. Only a few of those OK State Legislators with ALEC ties include:
*Rep. Bobby Cleveland (R-20), attended 2015 ALEC Annual Meeting
*Rep. Charles McCall (R-22), registered member
*Rep. G. Harold Wright, Jr. (R-57), ALEC State Chair and ALEC Public Safety and Elections Task    Force Alternate, attended 2015 ALEC annual meeting
*Sen. Julie Daniels (R-29), registered member
*Sen. Kim David (R), ALEC State Chair
*Sen. Gary Stanislawski (R-35), ALEC Task and Fiscal Policy Task Force Member
*There are several more listed members, but as of the 2018 primaries, many are no longer present.
   The WFF is one such profitable non-profit which is a major player in the walmartization of America's public schools and has an Oklahoma branch - the Oklahoma Public School Resource Center (OPSRC). The name alone is appealing and innocuous (Diane Ravitch), and implies that "we're here to help" public schools. Nothing could be further from the truth, however, as they are here for corporate profits at the expense of Oklahoma public schools and taxpayers. It is led in Oklahoma by Executive Director Brent Bushey. I've personally met Brent Bushey and find him to be a likable fellow who can discuss most subjects most agreeably. He is indeed the "superstar" hired by the WFF (out of Michigan) to "silence" our public schools. Damon Gardenhire, former chief spokesperson for former State Superintendent and Chiefs for Change member Janet Barresi and friend & confidente' of Brent Bushey - wrote this about local school superintendents in 2012: "Just keep in mind that the local supts will keep doing this (opposing vouchers for private and charter schools)... until choice (vouchers) is introduced (forced) into the system. Until then, they will continue to play these kinds of games. Only choice (legislatively forced vouchers) can be the fulcrum to make them truly responsive. A big part of why I took the Walton gig was because I see real promise for bringing positive pressure to bear (on superintendents) that will help cause a tipping point with enough superintendents that ugly voices like **** ******* will begin to be small and puny."
   Damon Gardenhire left his job with Janet in 2012 and was quickly employed by the Walton Family Foundation as a Senior Program Officer in charge of working closely with the WFF's team of K-12 education reform (corporate vouchers) experts to incorporate efforts from across the country, partnering with Oklahoma stakeholders (Brent Bushey and the OPSRC) to build on the state's current momentum for voucher reform. To be very clear, the Walton Family Foundation is the "For Profit, Non-profit" branch of Wal-Mart. The Wal-Mart corporation is in the business of providing goods and services to customers (which many small and local businesses provided in the past). Wal-Mart and other international and world corporations enter a community to sell everything - from hardware, groceries, farm and ranch supplies, auto parts, pharmacies, to now liquor and possibly optometry. It not only competes with local businesses for customers, but its ultimate goal is to run our local businesses out of town. Wal-Mart will then be the "sole provider" for all goods and services in our local communities. Wal-Mart is a retail giant however, so can't corner the market for services provided by the state - such as education... unless it has a non-profit. Enter the WFF! and Damon Gardenhire... and Brent Bushey. These two corporate employees are charged with taking over our Oklahoma traditional public schools - and replacing them with corporate charter brand of public education. Like Gardenhire said in 2012 - If enough local superintendents can be convinced to follow the Wal-Mart brand of public education, the "ugly" superintendents will not be effective in protecting our public schools. Brent Bushey will stop at nothing to do the WFF's work - even providing campaign donations to potential corporate candidates. If the targeted recipient candidate accepts the cash, and is elected - the office holder is now bound to the WFF.
   Corporate candidates' winning elections has been as predictable as the Golden State Warriors winning the NBA Championship. One can usually "follow the money" to corporate and charter school support to determine the winner in any state level election. The corporate reform tide seems to be turning on the WFF, however, as several conservative republicans have forced run-off elections for their corporate opponents, while several other corporate republicans have been eliminated altogether. For instance, the most high profile corporate elimination was in the race for the republican nomination for governor. The corporate republican love child, Todd Lamb, came in third place in the (R) primary, not making the run-off. He had collected more corporate donations ($millions) than any other candidate, and had been campaigning for several years for his chosen seat. He was the chosen replacement for Mary Fallin - chosen by corporate charter and private school interests (which often partner with big oil) to send $millions to corporate welfare groups. Oklahomans began to understand the facts surrounding Lamb's candidacy, and sent him packing. Several incumbent, corporate candidates for the state legislature were also sent packing in the primaries - while several more face runoff elections. Several more corporates even resigned early, having seen the "handwriting on the wall" - including House District 42 Representative Tim Downing. Remember, Downing was one of the nineteen "no teacher pay raises ever" crowd who was always supporting corporate charters and vouchers. After only a year and a half on the job, Downing began to prepare for his 2018 re-election bid by "polling likely voters" as to his first term effectiveness. The responses were evidently less than positive - so he decided to give up his seat, and pass the "baton" to another - Allie Burgin. The "baton" consisted of a $2,700 donation (the max allowed) to Allie's campaign. District 42 voters saw through the corporate charade, and Burgin was also rejected. Tim Downing also contributed $1,000 to the Hofmeister campaign as noted below. Many more examples of corporate influence not being so influential have been recorded this year, but it has not stopped the advocates of charter/private reform (Brent Bushey) from trying. Mr. Bushey has realized that even the WFF $millions are limited, so has reduced his spending to only one or two elected officials - such as the State Superintendent of Schools, Joy Hofmeister. As a matter of fact, Mrs. Hofmeister has accepted campaign donations from:
Tim Downing, District 42 State Rep, $1,000
Brent Bushey, Executive Director OPSRC, $500
Ben Harris, EPIC Charter Schools, $2,699
Josh Brock, EPIC Charter Schools, $2,700
Chris Brewster, Charter School Administrator, $250
Greater OKC Chamber PAC (Dark Money), $1,500
(*These are only a few of the groups and individuals which are supporting Joy Hofmeister in her 2018 campaign)
   While Superintendent Hofmeister may claim to "not be influenced" by this influx of campaign cash, she has voted for corporate charter reform in the past (see Seminole Public Schools charter). Several traditional public school and student advocates have also donated to the Hofmeister campaign, but indications are that it is to counter the $thousands from the charter industry. Several others are passionate in their support of Joy Hofmeister, and have urged those that aren't convinced to just "ask questions" concerning her allegiance to traditional public schools and its students. A few have privately asked the hard questions of Joy, but have received "less than satisfactory" answers in return, so we'll now ask them in writing and hope we get answers from her -
   So, Joy: You were elected in 2014 on a wave of public school support from teachers, student parents, administrators, professional groups, and unions - because you opposed the corporate reform movement and indicated your support for our traditional public schools... and teachers... and traditional advocates... and traditional public school students. You even accepted "dark money" support from education groups and corporate groups in order to get elected. The questions -
1) If you do not support the corporate deform movement, why have you accepted campaign support from those listed above and many other corporate deformers?

2) If you truly support local control of our public schools, why have you supported the state school board taking control away from local boards (In the past, you've indicated "it's for the kids")?

3) If you truly support teachers, why have you supported legislative candidates who do not support teachers (In the past, Joy Hofmeister has run ads in support of legislative candidates like Tim Downing, etc..., all who voted "no teacher pay raise ever" - and against pro-public school candidates, whether (D) or (R))?

4) If you truly support public school advocate candidates for office, why have you only supported (R) candidates, and not the (D) or (I) public school advocates (In the past, Hofmeister has endorsed several anti-public school candidates and criticized several pro-public school candidates)?

   Many public school advocates want to know the answers to these questions and many more before voting in the August 28 runoff and the November general election for State Superintendent of Schools.