Prior to the 2012 Oklahoma high school sports seasons - the member schools of the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association (OSSAA) determined that competitive equity during competition between schools was nonexistent. Most member schools believed the 'playing field' was tilted in the favor of those schools which had specific structural advantages such as the ability to offer scholarships and restrict enrollment. In order to promote competitive equity within OSSAA competition for all sports, the OSSAA directors appointed an eighteen member committee to study the issue and construct a plan which would eventually 'level the playing field' for member schools. Nine committee members were administrators from those schools which restrict enrollment and/or provide scholarships to athletes, and nine members were from schools which cannot restrict enrollment and/or provide financial incentives to athletes.
The Competitive Equity Committee eventually settled on Rule 14, which was to solve the 'level playing field' problem. The Rule required those schools which fit a specified 'success' criteria involving several factors, to advance one enrollment based classification level. For instance, a school participating in class 2A sports would advance to class 3A when all criteria were met. Many member schools at the time believed Rule 14 would fail in its intended purpose. Even several of the Committee members believed it would fail miserably, but said at the time that "It's the best we could do."
Rule 14 subsequently was implemented for the 2012 high school sports seasons, so we can now take a look at the data to analyze the effectiveness of the Rule - for high school football. The data from the 2011 football season (one year prior to implementation of Rule 14) can be compared to the data from the 2019 season (eight years into the Rule). Since 'success' is determined by the OSSAA as 'placing in the top eight' in post-season competition, we may study the 'success data' from the 2011 and 2019 football seasons for those schools which qualified for advancement under Rule 14:
2011 2019
Class Final 8 Semis Finals Final 8 Semis Finals Champ.
5A: 1)Kelly 1)Kelly Kelly
2)E.Prep
3)McG. McG. McG.
4A: 1)McG. no criteria schools
3A: 1) Metro 1)H.Hall H. Hall
2) Cascia Cascia Cascia 2)Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln
3) H. Hall H.Hall
2A: 1) Lincoln 1)Metro Metro Metro Metro
A 1)Rejoice Rejoice
B 1)Regent Regent Regent
C 1)Covenant
The data indicates that six separate 'criteria' schools made the final eight in 2011 with three advancing to the semis and one advancing to the finals. The 2019 data indicates that nine 'criteria' schools made the top eight, seven advanced to the semis with four advancing to the finals and two state champions. Very simply - Rule 14 has been a total bust for leveling the playing field!
One may notice that as several Rule 14 'criteria' schools became affected in 2012, they actually improved their success level. For example, Lincoln Christian was eliminated in the quarterfinals of class 2A football in 2011, but was a state champion in 2019 for class 3A. Metro Christian School was eliminated in the 2011 quarterfinals, but restricted its enrollment enough to win the class 2A State Title in 2019. Heritage Hall was eliminated in the 2011 class 3A semifinals but still eventually advanced to class 4A as a 'criteria' school several years later where it won several state titles. It then restricted its enrollment enough to be a class 2A school, but advanced to class 3A on criteria where it was eliminated in the state semifinals in 2019. All this restricting makes my head spin. Bishop McGuinness was eliminated in the class 4A quarterfinals in 2011, advanced to class 5A because of either increased enrollment or 'criteria', where it was eliminated in the class 5A finals in 2019.
Another competitive equity committee was appointed early in 2019 to once again come up with a solution to the problem. It was composed of four traditional public school officials and four 'restrictive' school officials. The committee decided that Rule 14 has been inneffective for leveling the playing field in only two sports (volleyball and tennis). They provided data which indicated that Rule 14 has been effective for promoting competitive equity in all other sports. The committee cited that the same approximate number of state titles were won by 'criteria' schools in the eight years previous to the implementation of Rule 14 as in the eight years after implementation. By many members accounts, their analysis is both invalid and unreliable. At any rate, the OSSAA executives believe that many non-restrictive school officials are citing data such as that above - based on 'emotions'. They have stated as much. These disparaging comments were made in both OKC and Tulsa area meetings.
I believe Joe Van Tuyl has a very workable plan which is fair to both restrictive enrollment schools and non-restrictive schools. If you don't already have a copy of the plan, you may request one from Jim Beckham or Joe Van Tuyl, and we'll be happy to send you one.
Thursday, December 19, 2019
Tuesday, December 17, 2019
How to intimidate an Oklahoma lawmaker:
An article in the Tulsa World - Lawmakers accuse Epic Charter Schools of trying to intimidate them, setting 'dangerous' precedent with defamation lawsuit against state senator, December 14 by Andrea Eger, describes how state lawmakers believe the lawsuit against State Senator Ron Sharp (R) is purely "intimidation". What Andrea didn't say is that Epic has tried to intimidate her by 'investigating her past'. One Republican Representative called the lawsuit against Senator Sharp "... an attempt to silence constituents whose concerns legislators are sworn to represent and an attempt to intimidate other lawmakers just before the deadline to file bills for the upcoming 2020 session." The quoted representative was probably correct in saying the 'Epic' lawsuit is "an attempt to silence constituents (You and I) whose concerns legislators are sworn to represent...", although I'll bet it won't silence many traditional public school folk.
Epic Public Schools (its preferred name) first warned Sharp in a "cease and desist" letter left at his front door "that he faced 'immediate legal action' if he didn't comply with the school's demand for a published retraction of his previous statements." Sharp evidently didn't retract his factual statements or questions, so the lawsuit was filed last week.
Another state representative commented about the lawsuit that "It's dirty; it's ugly; and we won't stand for it", indicating the House and Senate have big plans for Epic. Before those lawmakers who object to the lawsuit say 'we won't stand for it', they may consider another lawmaker's statement: "As elected officials, you are in the public eye and subject to that." The lawmaker evidently believes that legislators should expect to be sued when doing the right thing by speaking out against the theft of Oklahoma's tax dollars. Maybe so...
Other elected officials and lawmakers have received more than $100,000 in campaign contributions from Epic Public Schools in order to "look the other way" when considering Epic oversight legislation. It is doubtful these elected officials will speak out in opposition of anything Epic, so it may continue in creating an education 'dust bowl'. In the words of one senator "We might as well go home and let the special interest groups run our government totally," and that is exactly what Epic wants.
To be fair, only five lawmakers commented on the Epic Public Schools lawsuit - which leaves about 140 who have not weighed in on the subject. Those not allowed to voice their opinion at the Jenks Legislative Luncheon should certainly be allowed to weigh in on the lawsuit. I'll start by asking my Representative Cindy Roe (R) of Lindsay and Senator Paul Scott (R) of Duncan to please share your thoughts on the subject?
To be continued with their answers...
Epic Public Schools (its preferred name) first warned Sharp in a "cease and desist" letter left at his front door "that he faced 'immediate legal action' if he didn't comply with the school's demand for a published retraction of his previous statements." Sharp evidently didn't retract his factual statements or questions, so the lawsuit was filed last week.
Another state representative commented about the lawsuit that "It's dirty; it's ugly; and we won't stand for it", indicating the House and Senate have big plans for Epic. Before those lawmakers who object to the lawsuit say 'we won't stand for it', they may consider another lawmaker's statement: "As elected officials, you are in the public eye and subject to that." The lawmaker evidently believes that legislators should expect to be sued when doing the right thing by speaking out against the theft of Oklahoma's tax dollars. Maybe so...
Other elected officials and lawmakers have received more than $100,000 in campaign contributions from Epic Public Schools in order to "look the other way" when considering Epic oversight legislation. It is doubtful these elected officials will speak out in opposition of anything Epic, so it may continue in creating an education 'dust bowl'. In the words of one senator "We might as well go home and let the special interest groups run our government totally," and that is exactly what Epic wants.
To be fair, only five lawmakers commented on the Epic Public Schools lawsuit - which leaves about 140 who have not weighed in on the subject. Those not allowed to voice their opinion at the Jenks Legislative Luncheon should certainly be allowed to weigh in on the lawsuit. I'll start by asking my Representative Cindy Roe (R) of Lindsay and Senator Paul Scott (R) of Duncan to please share your thoughts on the subject?
To be continued with their answers...
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
Epic accuses State Senator of slander, and sues..
An article in the Tulsa World - Epic Charter Schools sues state senator who questioned student attendance and funding, accusing him of slander details the great lengths a shady racket will extend to protect its millionaires. Another article in the DO - Epic Charter Schools suing state senator alleging libel, slander relates that the Epic attorney, Bill Hickman, filed the slander and libel lawsuit Monday, and is "seeking at least $75,000 in damages" from State Senator Ron Sharp (R) of Shawnee.
Senator Sharp's plight (as he stands up for our public schools and students in the fight against corrupt racketeers) reminds one of the oft-quoted message by Martin Niemoller - "Then They Came for Me". Martin Niemoller was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolph Hitler in the days before and during World War II. His famous message was given later in life. Despite his ardent nationalism, Niemoller spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps. He was one of the earliest Germans to talk publicly about broader complicity in the Holocaust and guilt for what had happened to the Jews.
Here is that message that causes us to think deeply for the welfare of our fellowman:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Socialist.
"Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
"Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.
"Then they came for me-
and there was no one left to speak for me.
The quotation is from Niemoller's many lectures during the early years following the end of World War II. His point was that Germans - in particular the leaders of Protestant churches - had been complicit through their silence in the Nazi imprisonment, persecution, and murder of millions of people (LEADING WITH INTEGRITY, Clarence G. Oliver, Jr., Ed.D., 2015).
As public school officials, and more importantly as Oklahoma taxpayers, we should be speaking out against the unethical acquisition of taxpayer dollars by private management firms like Epic - and speaking out in support of those like Senator Sharp, who've had the courage to stand up and do what's right.
Senator Sharp's plight (as he stands up for our public schools and students in the fight against corrupt racketeers) reminds one of the oft-quoted message by Martin Niemoller - "Then They Came for Me". Martin Niemoller was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolph Hitler in the days before and during World War II. His famous message was given later in life. Despite his ardent nationalism, Niemoller spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps. He was one of the earliest Germans to talk publicly about broader complicity in the Holocaust and guilt for what had happened to the Jews.
Here is that message that causes us to think deeply for the welfare of our fellowman:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Socialist.
"Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
"Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.
"Then they came for me-
and there was no one left to speak for me.
The quotation is from Niemoller's many lectures during the early years following the end of World War II. His point was that Germans - in particular the leaders of Protestant churches - had been complicit through their silence in the Nazi imprisonment, persecution, and murder of millions of people (LEADING WITH INTEGRITY, Clarence G. Oliver, Jr., Ed.D., 2015).
As public school officials, and more importantly as Oklahoma taxpayers, we should be speaking out against the unethical acquisition of taxpayer dollars by private management firms like Epic - and speaking out in support of those like Senator Sharp, who've had the courage to stand up and do what's right.
Friday, December 6, 2019
OCPA Double Standard or Not?
The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA) calls itself a "conservative think tank" which believes the "free market is the single greatest tool in the world for lifting the most people out of poverty...". The OCPA generally translates this philosophy to private goods and services, and even taxpayer funded government services - as a model for private management companies and individuals to become millionaires.
Public education and our traditional public schools have been the target of private management companies such as Epic Youth Services for quite sometime now, with the full support of the OCPA. The owners of Epic Public Schools (blended and virtual) have become millionaires at Oklahoma taxpayer expense over the last several years (since 2012), yet there has been no public outcry over what some refer to as a racket.
Consistency of its 'free market' policy for public services has become an issue as of late, as Ray Carter, director of OCPA's Center for Independent Journalism - wrote Lawmakers learn shady management companies could benefit from Medicaid expansion (https://www.ocpathink.org/post/lawmakers-learn-shady-management-companies-could-benefit-from-medicaid-expansion). Ray "Ray Ray" Carter is the former chief editorial writer at The Oklahoman whose wife is Jennifer Carter, the former chief-of-staff for the former state superintendent Janet Barresi. Ray Carter has an unhealthy dislike for our traditional public schools just as his bosses at the OCPA do. In the 'policy' article Mr. Carter laments that "... at a recent legislative study, lawmakers learned the beneficiaries of Medicaid expansion may include management companies that have run several Oklahoma hospitals into the ground." One lawmaker said some out-of-state management companies have simply taken on new names and have been "raiding our hospitals over and over again."
Someone from the OCPA (Ray Ray Carter) is gonna have to explain to us how Empower HMS (the Medicaid raider) is different from Epic Youth Services (the public school raider). The characteristics of both private management companies are the same, from the 'name changes' to the private acquisition of taxpayer dollars, but the OCPA clearly distinguishes a difference. Can anyone tell us what the difference is?
Public education and our traditional public schools have been the target of private management companies such as Epic Youth Services for quite sometime now, with the full support of the OCPA. The owners of Epic Public Schools (blended and virtual) have become millionaires at Oklahoma taxpayer expense over the last several years (since 2012), yet there has been no public outcry over what some refer to as a racket.
Consistency of its 'free market' policy for public services has become an issue as of late, as Ray Carter, director of OCPA's Center for Independent Journalism - wrote Lawmakers learn shady management companies could benefit from Medicaid expansion (https://www.ocpathink.org/post/lawmakers-learn-shady-management-companies-could-benefit-from-medicaid-expansion). Ray "Ray Ray" Carter is the former chief editorial writer at The Oklahoman whose wife is Jennifer Carter, the former chief-of-staff for the former state superintendent Janet Barresi. Ray Carter has an unhealthy dislike for our traditional public schools just as his bosses at the OCPA do. In the 'policy' article Mr. Carter laments that "... at a recent legislative study, lawmakers learned the beneficiaries of Medicaid expansion may include management companies that have run several Oklahoma hospitals into the ground." One lawmaker said some out-of-state management companies have simply taken on new names and have been "raiding our hospitals over and over again."
Someone from the OCPA (Ray Ray Carter) is gonna have to explain to us how Empower HMS (the Medicaid raider) is different from Epic Youth Services (the public school raider). The characteristics of both private management companies are the same, from the 'name changes' to the private acquisition of taxpayer dollars, but the OCPA clearly distinguishes a difference. Can anyone tell us what the difference is?
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
OSSAA Competitive Equity Plan for Volleyball
The Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activity Association (OSSAA) will soon send out to a vote of the membership - a competitive equity revision for Rule 14, which affects only volleyball and tennis. Let's take a look at how it will affect volleyball, if implemented:
There are currently 32 class 6A, 32 class 5A, 32 class 4A, and 30 class 3A volleyball teams in the OSSAA - for a total 126. There are no private schools in class 6A, 6 private school volleyball teams in class 5A, 10 private schools in class 4A, and 6 private schools in class 3A.
If implemented, the new competitive equity rule will force the top four finishers in class 5A to class 6A. Since no volleyball team will be forced to advance more than one classification, the rule exempts two of the top four finishers from advancing to class 6A - which leaves Bishop Kelly and Bishop McGuinness to advance to 6A. If BK and BM advances to class 6A, the two smallest 6A teams (as per ADM) will regress to class 5A. Many OSSAA member schools believe the 'playing field' is level in class 6A sports, since no private schools exist in any class 6A activity. Many also believe the addition of BM and BK to class 6A volleyball will only tilt the 'playing field' toward private schools in class 6A competition. The question then becomes - will the departure of BM and BK from class 5A level the playing field for all schools in class 5A? The OSSAA seems to think it will, but at least two private schools will move up from class 4A, replacing BM and BK. Lincoln Christian and Regent Prep are likely to move up to class 5A from class 4A, unless the five other class 4A private schools would also qualify to bump to 5A - in which case a total seven private schools will move from class 4A to class 5A. In this scenario, class 5A volleyball's inequity would only be magnified. In summary, class 6A and class 5A volleyball will become new 'super' classifications for high school volleyball in the OSSAA. What about class 4A volleyball?
Since LC and RP have vacated class 4A, it leaves room for two class 3A volleyball teams to move up to 4A. The two most likely advancers are Metro Christian and Oklahoma Bible since they have finished as state champion and state runnerup of class 3A. Although no 3A teams have previously advanced in classification, Heritage Hall is also eligible to move to class 4A - providing all other qualifiers have been met. In the opinion of many OSSAA members - the competitive equity in class 4A will not be enhanced with the new bump-up rule (advancing private schools to class 6A), but what about class 3A?
For class 3A volleyball (the smallest classification) - Metro Christian, Oklahoma Bible, and Heritage Hall will likely advance to class 4A as a result of the old Rule 14, not the new revised competitive equity rule. Since class 4A volleyball is likely to lose two private schools due to the advancement rule, it will likely get three new private schools, for a net gain of one private school.
In summary, if the above likely scenarios are accurate - The new revised rule for competitive equity will do nothing for leveling the playing field in high school volleyball! If an OSSAA member school votes yes because it thinks the change will level the playing field for volleyball - think again. As a matter of fact many OSSAA members believe the new Rule will only tilt the playing field to a greater degree toward private schools.
As a prologue to this published re-classification scenario: Several weeks ago the OSSAA was given the opportunity to respond by correcting any errors of assumptions in the possible advancement of private schools (to class 6A). They have yet to respond, so we must assume the scenario is accurate.
There are currently 32 class 6A, 32 class 5A, 32 class 4A, and 30 class 3A volleyball teams in the OSSAA - for a total 126. There are no private schools in class 6A, 6 private school volleyball teams in class 5A, 10 private schools in class 4A, and 6 private schools in class 3A.
If implemented, the new competitive equity rule will force the top four finishers in class 5A to class 6A. Since no volleyball team will be forced to advance more than one classification, the rule exempts two of the top four finishers from advancing to class 6A - which leaves Bishop Kelly and Bishop McGuinness to advance to 6A. If BK and BM advances to class 6A, the two smallest 6A teams (as per ADM) will regress to class 5A. Many OSSAA member schools believe the 'playing field' is level in class 6A sports, since no private schools exist in any class 6A activity. Many also believe the addition of BM and BK to class 6A volleyball will only tilt the 'playing field' toward private schools in class 6A competition. The question then becomes - will the departure of BM and BK from class 5A level the playing field for all schools in class 5A? The OSSAA seems to think it will, but at least two private schools will move up from class 4A, replacing BM and BK. Lincoln Christian and Regent Prep are likely to move up to class 5A from class 4A, unless the five other class 4A private schools would also qualify to bump to 5A - in which case a total seven private schools will move from class 4A to class 5A. In this scenario, class 5A volleyball's inequity would only be magnified. In summary, class 6A and class 5A volleyball will become new 'super' classifications for high school volleyball in the OSSAA. What about class 4A volleyball?
Since LC and RP have vacated class 4A, it leaves room for two class 3A volleyball teams to move up to 4A. The two most likely advancers are Metro Christian and Oklahoma Bible since they have finished as state champion and state runnerup of class 3A. Although no 3A teams have previously advanced in classification, Heritage Hall is also eligible to move to class 4A - providing all other qualifiers have been met. In the opinion of many OSSAA members - the competitive equity in class 4A will not be enhanced with the new bump-up rule (advancing private schools to class 6A), but what about class 3A?
For class 3A volleyball (the smallest classification) - Metro Christian, Oklahoma Bible, and Heritage Hall will likely advance to class 4A as a result of the old Rule 14, not the new revised competitive equity rule. Since class 4A volleyball is likely to lose two private schools due to the advancement rule, it will likely get three new private schools, for a net gain of one private school.
In summary, if the above likely scenarios are accurate - The new revised rule for competitive equity will do nothing for leveling the playing field in high school volleyball! If an OSSAA member school votes yes because it thinks the change will level the playing field for volleyball - think again. As a matter of fact many OSSAA members believe the new Rule will only tilt the playing field to a greater degree toward private schools.
As a prologue to this published re-classification scenario: Several weeks ago the OSSAA was given the opportunity to respond by correcting any errors of assumptions in the possible advancement of private schools (to class 6A). They have yet to respond, so we must assume the scenario is accurate.
Friday, November 22, 2019
Misdirected Indignation... or Calculated Smokescreen?
Most educators and those readers of major state newspapers noticed the story of the newly hired public school superintendent who will earn a "high" contracted salary. The media publicized the fact that the superintendent may be earning a higher salary than superintendents of schools with more than ten times the number of students. Some employees of the school are said to have missed work, as a way to protest the superintendent's contract.
As a matter of fact, the TV and print news media has 'opined' several times in the past about "high superintendent salaries" as the root cause of low teacher salaries and the predicament of public education funding in Oklahoma. Some lawmakers have also echoed this 'false narrative' and misdirected indignation..., or is it the media echoing the lawmakers' indignation?
The media justifiably questioned the newly contracted salary for the superintendent mentioned above, but has conveniently ignored the 'public' school CEO right down the street, who is earning in excess of $5 million for a 'one year contract'. The CEO is earning as much as twenty times the salary of a school superintendent with the same number of students. Where is the media attention? Where is the taxpayer outrage? Where is the public school's teacher outrage?
Many public educators and taxpayers believe the silence on this issue is calculated and intentional. Many also believe the media focus and individual lawmaker indignation at 'other' superintendent salaries - is a calculated smokescreen designed to hide facts from Oklahoma taxpayers. Of course, this is all just one person's opinion, but based on analysis of facts. To be continued...
As a matter of fact, the TV and print news media has 'opined' several times in the past about "high superintendent salaries" as the root cause of low teacher salaries and the predicament of public education funding in Oklahoma. Some lawmakers have also echoed this 'false narrative' and misdirected indignation..., or is it the media echoing the lawmakers' indignation?
The media justifiably questioned the newly contracted salary for the superintendent mentioned above, but has conveniently ignored the 'public' school CEO right down the street, who is earning in excess of $5 million for a 'one year contract'. The CEO is earning as much as twenty times the salary of a school superintendent with the same number of students. Where is the media attention? Where is the taxpayer outrage? Where is the public school's teacher outrage?
Many public educators and taxpayers believe the silence on this issue is calculated and intentional. Many also believe the media focus and individual lawmaker indignation at 'other' superintendent salaries - is a calculated smokescreen designed to hide facts from Oklahoma taxpayers. Of course, this is all just one person's opinion, but based on analysis of facts. To be continued...
Thursday, November 7, 2019
OSSAA Competitive Equity Plan - Take Four...
OSSAA research indicates the only sure way to ensure competitive equity for all member schools is to separate schools for state play-off competition (Journal of Amateur Sport, National Review of Interscholastic Competitive Balance Solutions Related to the Public-Private Debate, Volume I, Issue I, 2015). Four other states have ditched their previous "multiplier" or "advancement" systems in favor of separating schools for play-off competition - because they claimed their systems did not work as hoped.The states which separate schools for play-off competition do so based on public and private schools, or separate schools based on advantage factors such as "financial assistance" and "restrictive enrollment".
Researched play-off competition in Oklahoma high school sports indicates that Rule 14 for competitive equity has also been a dismal failure for Oklahoma and the OSSAA. The competitive equity issue in Oklahoma was addressed by the OSSAA in 2011 with the passage of Rule 14. The Rule became effective for the 2012 sports seasons. In 2011, the year before Rule 14 was implemented, the football season ended with the following results for private schools:
Class 5A - Bishop Kelly, top eight (beaten in the 2011 state quarter-finals)
Class 4A - Bishop McGuinness, top four (beaten in the 2011 state semi-finals)
Class 3A - Cascia Hall, 2011 state runner-up
Class 2A - Lincoln Christian, top eight (beaten in the 2011 state quarter-finals)
Class A - No private schools
Class B - No private schools
Class C - No private schools
Approximately 6% of OSSAA member schools is private. In classes 2A through 5A, 32 schools made the top eight in 2011. Four schools were private, which indicates that 12.5% made the state play-offs. Six percent private membership but 12.5% in play-offs, indicates competitive equity was lacking for football during the 2011 season.
During the 2019 football season (seven years into the OSSAA's Rule 14 for competitive equity:
Class 5A - Bishop McGuinness ranked #1
Class 4A - No private schools
Class 3A - Heritage Hall ranked #1; Lincoln Christian ranked #2
Class 2A - Metro Christian ranked #1
Class A - Rejoice Christian ranked #2
Class B - Regent Prep ranked #2
Class C - Southwest Covenant ranked #1
The data analysis from the above play-offs for the 2011 and 2019 football seasons indicates that Rule 14 has been ineffective for promoting competitive equity in the OSSAA. Some member schools say that the implementation of Rule 14 in 2012 even made the problem worse. As a matter of fact, data from the volleyball state championships over the past three years indicate that Rule 14 has been a complete bust, and the OSSAA's solution to 'fix' the problem will only magnify the competitive equity issue.
So, what would a separation of public schools from private schools look like if the OSSAA decided to solve the competitive equity problem once and for all? The OSSAA executive director David Jackson stated "I think there are 24 private schools in the OSSAA", last week at the Westmoore regional meeting. In football, there are currently ten classifications for member schools (6AI, 6AII, 5A, 4A, 3A, 2A, A, B, C, and I), so the OSSAA is not reluctant to add classes. If Joe Van Tuyl's 2009 competitive equity plan were implemented and private schools were separated from public schools when the state playoffs started, it may look something like this:
Class IA - 8 private schools
Class IB - 11 private schools
Class IC (eight man) - 5 private schools
All private schools in the OSSAA would make the playoffs. The Class IC play-off scenario would pit the 4th and 5th seeded teams for the first round. The semi-final round would match the top seeded team with the winner of the 4th vs. 5th game, and the 2nd seeded team would play the 3rd seeded team. The class IB championship would play out the same way as the current 16 team bracket for playoffs - 8 vs. 11 and 9 vs. 10 the first week, and an 8 team bracket in weeks thereafter. The class IA championship bracket would play out as an 8 team bracket.
Everyone wins if the Van Tuyl plan is adopted by the members of the OSSAA: 1) The OSSAA wins because it generates more money for member schools. 2) Private schools win because all private schools make the play-offs, but continue to play public schools during the regular season. 3) Public schools win because more public schools make the play-offs. 4) Fans win because they get to see more "good games". For more information on this subject see:
mybackpagewithjimbeckhamblog.blogspot.com/2019/11/ossaa-regional-meeting-at-westmoore.html
Researched play-off competition in Oklahoma high school sports indicates that Rule 14 for competitive equity has also been a dismal failure for Oklahoma and the OSSAA. The competitive equity issue in Oklahoma was addressed by the OSSAA in 2011 with the passage of Rule 14. The Rule became effective for the 2012 sports seasons. In 2011, the year before Rule 14 was implemented, the football season ended with the following results for private schools:
Class 5A - Bishop Kelly, top eight (beaten in the 2011 state quarter-finals)
Class 4A - Bishop McGuinness, top four (beaten in the 2011 state semi-finals)
Class 3A - Cascia Hall, 2011 state runner-up
Class 2A - Lincoln Christian, top eight (beaten in the 2011 state quarter-finals)
Class A - No private schools
Class B - No private schools
Class C - No private schools
Approximately 6% of OSSAA member schools is private. In classes 2A through 5A, 32 schools made the top eight in 2011. Four schools were private, which indicates that 12.5% made the state play-offs. Six percent private membership but 12.5% in play-offs, indicates competitive equity was lacking for football during the 2011 season.
During the 2019 football season (seven years into the OSSAA's Rule 14 for competitive equity:
Class 5A - Bishop McGuinness ranked #1
Class 4A - No private schools
Class 3A - Heritage Hall ranked #1; Lincoln Christian ranked #2
Class 2A - Metro Christian ranked #1
Class A - Rejoice Christian ranked #2
Class B - Regent Prep ranked #2
Class C - Southwest Covenant ranked #1
The data analysis from the above play-offs for the 2011 and 2019 football seasons indicates that Rule 14 has been ineffective for promoting competitive equity in the OSSAA. Some member schools say that the implementation of Rule 14 in 2012 even made the problem worse. As a matter of fact, data from the volleyball state championships over the past three years indicate that Rule 14 has been a complete bust, and the OSSAA's solution to 'fix' the problem will only magnify the competitive equity issue.
So, what would a separation of public schools from private schools look like if the OSSAA decided to solve the competitive equity problem once and for all? The OSSAA executive director David Jackson stated "I think there are 24 private schools in the OSSAA", last week at the Westmoore regional meeting. In football, there are currently ten classifications for member schools (6AI, 6AII, 5A, 4A, 3A, 2A, A, B, C, and I), so the OSSAA is not reluctant to add classes. If Joe Van Tuyl's 2009 competitive equity plan were implemented and private schools were separated from public schools when the state playoffs started, it may look something like this:
Class IA - 8 private schools
Class IB - 11 private schools
Class IC (eight man) - 5 private schools
All private schools in the OSSAA would make the playoffs. The Class IC play-off scenario would pit the 4th and 5th seeded teams for the first round. The semi-final round would match the top seeded team with the winner of the 4th vs. 5th game, and the 2nd seeded team would play the 3rd seeded team. The class IB championship would play out the same way as the current 16 team bracket for playoffs - 8 vs. 11 and 9 vs. 10 the first week, and an 8 team bracket in weeks thereafter. The class IA championship bracket would play out as an 8 team bracket.
Everyone wins if the Van Tuyl plan is adopted by the members of the OSSAA: 1) The OSSAA wins because it generates more money for member schools. 2) Private schools win because all private schools make the play-offs, but continue to play public schools during the regular season. 3) Public schools win because more public schools make the play-offs. 4) Fans win because they get to see more "good games". For more information on this subject see:
mybackpagewithjimbeckhamblog.blogspot.com/2019/11/ossaa-regional-meeting-at-westmoore.html
Monday, November 4, 2019
OSSAA regional meeting at Westmoore
We attended the Oct. 31 regional OSSAA meeting at Westmoore, where the OSSAA's new "competitive equity" plan was to be discussed. OSSAA Executive Director David Jackson explained the plan is to advance four volleyball and tennis teams from class 5A to class 6A - if all Rule 14 criteria are met for the four schools. Rule 14 previously prevented any schools from advancing to class 6A by criteria. Jackson then asked if anyone in the room has concerns or questions about the proposal. Two members spoke up about the concern that a new "super" classification for volleyball will be created when four private schools are added to class 6A volleyball. David Jackson responded that 'we already have that in class 5A volleyball'. He seemed to imply that since we already have one "super" class (5A) for volleyball, we are justified in having two. Jackson went on to say that no other competitive equity plans were considered, other than 'enrollment based' plans. Both coaches that spoke out about the new "super" classification plan, agreed that a plan which separates private schools from public schools for state playoff competition is the only workable solution.
As an example of a classification system that has gone awry is the case of the Victory Christian (VC) High School volleyball team. In 2017, enrollment classification would have placed the team in class 3A, but was inadvertently advanced to class 5A (should have been advanced to class 4A as per Rule 14) - where it won the 5A championship. The convoluted nature of the Rule 14 advancement requirements was the reason for the OSSAA 'mistake'. As a matter of fact, we are not even sure of the above stated fact due to the 'super convoluted' nature of the rule. After winning the 5A championship in 2017, VC won the class 4A championship in 2018 - where it belonged according to the OSSAA 'enrollment based' system. Since VC won the 4A title in 2018, the OSSAA advanced it to class 5A for the 2019 season, where it won the 5A championship the last week of October. No one, including OSSAA officials, can truly say what class VC should compete, but after it won the 5A state title two weeks ago - the team broke out into a chant "We want 6A! We want 6A!". The OSSAA executive director assured the class 6A coaches at the Westmoore meeting that a team may only be advanced one class upward, and since VC had already 'advanced' to class 5A - it would not be going to class 6A next year (where it would also dominate).
The new and improved version of Rule 14 will affect volleyball by advancing the top four finishers in class 5A, to class 6A.. if all criteria are met for advancement. The new rule prohibits a team from advancing to 6A if it has already advanced to 5A previously. This would prevent VC from advancing to class 6A, since it had already advanced to 5A from 4A. So class 6A volleyball teams may be worried about something that won't happen. It appears Tulsa Bishop Kelly may be the only class 5A volleyball team to qualify for advancement to class 6A. If that is so, the smallest class 6A team, Yukon, would regress to class 5A, taking the place of Kelly. A class 4A team, Lincoln Christian, would likely be the only 4A team to advance to 5A. If this scenario happened, the smallest class 4A team would drop down to class 3A. The advancement of Lincoln Christian to class 5A would likely knock Bethany out of an earned play-off spot in 2019, resulting in the only class with all eight playoff teams being 'private'. Of course, this scenario is only conjecture, as Rule 14 becomes more convoluted with each revision.
The OSSAA will undoubtedly vote to send this revision out to a vote of the membership, unlike what it's done in the past for other competitive equity plans. It may pass a vote of the membership because OSSAA officials have told the membership that 'it's the best we can do'. Many OSSAA member schools know better, however, so we'll see how it goes.
As an example of a classification system that has gone awry is the case of the Victory Christian (VC) High School volleyball team. In 2017, enrollment classification would have placed the team in class 3A, but was inadvertently advanced to class 5A (should have been advanced to class 4A as per Rule 14) - where it won the 5A championship. The convoluted nature of the Rule 14 advancement requirements was the reason for the OSSAA 'mistake'. As a matter of fact, we are not even sure of the above stated fact due to the 'super convoluted' nature of the rule. After winning the 5A championship in 2017, VC won the class 4A championship in 2018 - where it belonged according to the OSSAA 'enrollment based' system. Since VC won the 4A title in 2018, the OSSAA advanced it to class 5A for the 2019 season, where it won the 5A championship the last week of October. No one, including OSSAA officials, can truly say what class VC should compete, but after it won the 5A state title two weeks ago - the team broke out into a chant "We want 6A! We want 6A!". The OSSAA executive director assured the class 6A coaches at the Westmoore meeting that a team may only be advanced one class upward, and since VC had already 'advanced' to class 5A - it would not be going to class 6A next year (where it would also dominate).
The new and improved version of Rule 14 will affect volleyball by advancing the top four finishers in class 5A, to class 6A.. if all criteria are met for advancement. The new rule prohibits a team from advancing to 6A if it has already advanced to 5A previously. This would prevent VC from advancing to class 6A, since it had already advanced to 5A from 4A. So class 6A volleyball teams may be worried about something that won't happen. It appears Tulsa Bishop Kelly may be the only class 5A volleyball team to qualify for advancement to class 6A. If that is so, the smallest class 6A team, Yukon, would regress to class 5A, taking the place of Kelly. A class 4A team, Lincoln Christian, would likely be the only 4A team to advance to 5A. If this scenario happened, the smallest class 4A team would drop down to class 3A. The advancement of Lincoln Christian to class 5A would likely knock Bethany out of an earned play-off spot in 2019, resulting in the only class with all eight playoff teams being 'private'. Of course, this scenario is only conjecture, as Rule 14 becomes more convoluted with each revision.
The OSSAA will undoubtedly vote to send this revision out to a vote of the membership, unlike what it's done in the past for other competitive equity plans. It may pass a vote of the membership because OSSAA officials have told the membership that 'it's the best we can do'. Many OSSAA member schools know better, however, so we'll see how it goes.
Thursday, October 17, 2019
Complicity by Silence: The Epic Racket
Most people believe that to remain silent on any illegal or unethical practice, especially when incontrovertible evidence indicates illegal or unethical behavior, is to be complicit. The practice of remaining silent when one knows that possible illegal and certainly unethical behavior is going on - is complicity by silence.
When people know the difference between right and wrong, ethical and unethical, and even legal and illegal - but sit idly by or say nothing when they see unethical or illegal actions - inaction or silence can mean complicity. Many public school teachers, officials, and supporters have not sat idly by or remained silent while Epic Virtual and Blended school owners have become millionaires at Oklahoma tax payer expense. These teachers and education supporters have openly voiced their opposition to the Epic racketeering going on in our state, and have stood up to the unethical and illegal activities. They (teachers and public school supporters) can do very little about the problem, but still call it out for what it is.
While teachers and other public school employees usually aren't listened to when they object to illegal or unethical behavior by Epic Virtual or Blended Public School owners, there are a few entities such as law enforcement and prosecuting attorneys who are listened to. When the questioned behavior is unethical, but not illegal, it often falls upon our state lawmakers and other elected public officials (Senators and Representatives) to voice concern and ask the hard questions.
Senator Ron Sharp (R) of Shawnee is one such lawmaker who is not afraid to stand up for the public interest and demand answers from Epic. He continues to demand answers from Epic, and even from his fellow lawmakers - many of whom have chosen to remain silent, concerning the alleged misappropriation of tax payer funds. According to Senator Sharp, about $11.2 million in tax payer dollars has flown out the door - going to the owners of Epic, instead of to Oklahoma students. Since Oklahoma senators and representatives are in charge of overseeing how tax dollars are spent and not squandered, it stands to reason that lawmakers would be upset at how this waste of money has been allowed to go on. Senator Sharp has faced the wrath of Epic, however, as it has hired private investigators to "dig up dirt", threatened his job by encouraging Senate leadership to "fire" him, and threatened lawsuits for "slandering" Epic owners. Senator Sharp is alone in asking the tough questions and demanding answers in behalf of Oklahoma tax payers, because many other lawmakers are evidently complicit with Epic in their silence.
This "complicity by silence" is not a fact, however, until those lawmakers have been given the opportunity to voice their opinion. Senator Ron Sharp does not represent my home district, so it may only be fair to give my senator and representative a chance to speak their opinions and protect Oklahoma tax dollars which should be going to Oklahoma students. Senator Paul Scott (R) of Duncan and Representative Cindy Roe (R) of Lindsay are my local lawmakers. Since Epic opened a school in Blanchard several weeks ago, I think it only fair to give both lawmakers a chance to comment. I plan on asking these tough questions of both Roe and Scott at a legislative meeting for educators on November 21 in Wayne, Oklahoma. It will be interesting to hear their answers to some very political questions. I'll publish the responses in this post after November 21.
When people know the difference between right and wrong, ethical and unethical, and even legal and illegal - but sit idly by or say nothing when they see unethical or illegal actions - inaction or silence can mean complicity. Many public school teachers, officials, and supporters have not sat idly by or remained silent while Epic Virtual and Blended school owners have become millionaires at Oklahoma tax payer expense. These teachers and education supporters have openly voiced their opposition to the Epic racketeering going on in our state, and have stood up to the unethical and illegal activities. They (teachers and public school supporters) can do very little about the problem, but still call it out for what it is.
While teachers and other public school employees usually aren't listened to when they object to illegal or unethical behavior by Epic Virtual or Blended Public School owners, there are a few entities such as law enforcement and prosecuting attorneys who are listened to. When the questioned behavior is unethical, but not illegal, it often falls upon our state lawmakers and other elected public officials (Senators and Representatives) to voice concern and ask the hard questions.
Senator Ron Sharp (R) of Shawnee is one such lawmaker who is not afraid to stand up for the public interest and demand answers from Epic. He continues to demand answers from Epic, and even from his fellow lawmakers - many of whom have chosen to remain silent, concerning the alleged misappropriation of tax payer funds. According to Senator Sharp, about $11.2 million in tax payer dollars has flown out the door - going to the owners of Epic, instead of to Oklahoma students. Since Oklahoma senators and representatives are in charge of overseeing how tax dollars are spent and not squandered, it stands to reason that lawmakers would be upset at how this waste of money has been allowed to go on. Senator Sharp has faced the wrath of Epic, however, as it has hired private investigators to "dig up dirt", threatened his job by encouraging Senate leadership to "fire" him, and threatened lawsuits for "slandering" Epic owners. Senator Sharp is alone in asking the tough questions and demanding answers in behalf of Oklahoma tax payers, because many other lawmakers are evidently complicit with Epic in their silence.
This "complicity by silence" is not a fact, however, until those lawmakers have been given the opportunity to voice their opinion. Senator Ron Sharp does not represent my home district, so it may only be fair to give my senator and representative a chance to speak their opinions and protect Oklahoma tax dollars which should be going to Oklahoma students. Senator Paul Scott (R) of Duncan and Representative Cindy Roe (R) of Lindsay are my local lawmakers. Since Epic opened a school in Blanchard several weeks ago, I think it only fair to give both lawmakers a chance to comment. I plan on asking these tough questions of both Roe and Scott at a legislative meeting for educators on November 21 in Wayne, Oklahoma. It will be interesting to hear their answers to some very political questions. I'll publish the responses in this post after November 21.
Tuesday, October 15, 2019
OSSAA Competitive Equity Plan
The OSSAA's plan to revise Rule 14 to promote competitive equity in the OSSAA falls woefully short of accomplishing its goal. An 'OSSAA appointed' committee was charged with studying the competitive equity issue about eight months ago. They were further charged with coming up with a plan which will promote competitive equity for all member schools.
Before we take a look at the OSSAA's recommendations for "tweaking" Rule 14 to level the playing field for all schools, let's look at the Oklahoma high school football rankings this year as a way of determining the effectiveness of Rule 14 for promoting competitive equity. Only about 6% (20 of 337) of the total member schools which participate in football are 'private', which leaves 94% 'public'. There are six classifications in which both public and private schools participate: 5A, 3A, 2A, A, B, and C. No private schools participate in classes 6A and 4A football. The high school football class rankings according to the Daily Oklahoman after seven weeks into the season include:
Class 5A - Bishop McGuinness #1
Class 3A - Heritage Hall #1, Lincoln Christian #2
Class 2A - Metro Christian #1
Class A - Rejoice Christian #2
Class B - Regent Prep #2
Class C - Southwest Covenant #1
Only time will tell as to how many private school state champions will be crowned in December, but there is a good chance that a private school state champion will be crowned in all classes in which they participate. The fact that private schools make up only about 6% of the total participants indicates that Rule 14 has been a total bust for promoting competitive equity in the OSSAA.
Further evidence that Rule 14 (implemented in 2012) has not been effective for leveling the playing field in football, is collected when we examine the final rankings for high school football in 2011 (one year prior to implemention of Rule 14 for competitive equity):
Class 5A - Bishop Kelly - top 8 (beaten in the 2011 state quarter-finals)
Class 4A - Bishop McGuinness - top 4 (beaten in the state semi-finals)
Class 3A - Cascia Hall #2
Class 2A - Lincoln Christian - top 8 (beaten in the state quarter-finals)
Class A - No private schools
Class B - No private schools
Class C - No private schools
As noted in state news a few weeks ago - the OSSAA has not been very good at gathering 'athlete concussion' data and analyzing that data in solving this student health crisis. The OSSAA has publicly stated that it's waiting for Texas UIL to study the problem before addressing it. It comes as no great shock that the OSSAA would 'drag its feet' in addressing the public/private competitive equity issue, if it has done the same thing for much more serious problems.
The OSSAA committee assigned to study the competitive equity issue and form a solution to the problem, listed one research article - "National Review of Interscholastic Competitive Balance Solutions Related to the Public-Private Debate" Volume 1, Issue 1, 2015 of the JOURNAL OF AMATEUR SPORT. The research document noted several methods by which state athletic associations have attempted to level the playing field for both public and private schools, including enrollment "multipliers" and "advancement" rules similar to Oklahoma. The research indicated, however, that most, if not all these enrollment based rules have failed to promote competitive equity. The document goes on to relate that "separate playoffs" for public and private schools is the "... only competitive balance solution to eliminate the public vs. private issue by isolating private schools to separate playoffs" (page 41). One must bear in mind that the OSSAA touted this research when devising its own competitive equity solution.
So, just what is the OSSAA's new competitive equity plan for leveling the playing field for all members? We've not seen it in print just yet, but a report by the competitive equity committee entails that it involves bumping the top four finishers in class 5A volleyball and tennis, to class 6A. To many OSSAA member schools, this plan looks like some sort of convoluted joke.
There are five private school volleyball teams in class 5A and twenty-seven public school teams. All five finished in the top eight, which means that two teams will move up to class 6A. (Three of the five were already playing up a class, so may not advance to class 6A.) The two lowest ADM class 6A volleyball teams will then 'bump down' to 5A, to replace the two 5A teams which advanced to 6A.
In related news, the NCAA has announced that it will create another division for college sports. In addition to Division I, II, and III for athletic competition levels based on scholarships and ability to recruit - there will now be Division IV, for those colleges which have a lot of 'out-of-state' players. It has been suggested that those schools such as the University of Oklahoma, which have a lot of 'move-ins', have an unfair advantage over those schools which do not (like Texas and USC). According to the NCAA, a large number of 'move-in' athletes does not promote competitive equity. Of course, this is fake news, and asinine for the NCAA to ever consider.
It was suggested to the OSSAA membership by an OSSAA official, however, that 'move-ins' create a tilted playing field in competition between member schools. In other words, competitive equity cannot be achieved without considering the number of 'move-in' players a team has. The official even provided my school as an example. I believe the official knows this is a ridiculous factor to consider when promoting competitive equity, but simply used it as a distraction from the real factors (providing student financial assistance and restricted enrollment). The same OSSAA official claimed we have published misleading, inaccurate, or emotionally charged information in the data above.
Update - October 31, 2019: We attended the OSSAA regional meeting at Westmoore high school. The OSSAA's plan for tweaking Rule 14 (Competitive Equity) involves advancing the top four finishers in 5A volleyball and tennis to class 6A, just as we expected. The class 6A traditional public schools in attendance were unhappy with the OSSAA suggestion. They believe that this new Rule 14 will lead to a "super-class" of volleyball and tennis teams in the OSSAA. The OSSAA's response was that there is already a super-class in class 5A, indicating that we'll now have two super-classes for volleyball. The OSSAA indicated it will probably send the new competitive equity plan out to vote of the membership, but there are many class 6A schools which will vote 'No', and countless other schools which will vote 'No', because the new Rule 14 tweaker does nothing to address the real problem - competitive equity in the OSSAA. In fact, the OSSAA's analysis of the data indicates that the competitive equity problem has been solved for all other sports. The competitive equity problem for member schools has not been solved for any sports!
Update - November 13, 2019: For the 2019 football playoffs, fifteen of the twenty private schools made the playoffs, or 75%. Only about 52% of the public schools are playoff bound.
Before we take a look at the OSSAA's recommendations for "tweaking" Rule 14 to level the playing field for all schools, let's look at the Oklahoma high school football rankings this year as a way of determining the effectiveness of Rule 14 for promoting competitive equity. Only about 6% (20 of 337) of the total member schools which participate in football are 'private', which leaves 94% 'public'. There are six classifications in which both public and private schools participate: 5A, 3A, 2A, A, B, and C. No private schools participate in classes 6A and 4A football. The high school football class rankings according to the Daily Oklahoman after seven weeks into the season include:
Class 5A - Bishop McGuinness #1
Class 3A - Heritage Hall #1, Lincoln Christian #2
Class 2A - Metro Christian #1
Class A - Rejoice Christian #2
Class B - Regent Prep #2
Class C - Southwest Covenant #1
Only time will tell as to how many private school state champions will be crowned in December, but there is a good chance that a private school state champion will be crowned in all classes in which they participate. The fact that private schools make up only about 6% of the total participants indicates that Rule 14 has been a total bust for promoting competitive equity in the OSSAA.
Further evidence that Rule 14 (implemented in 2012) has not been effective for leveling the playing field in football, is collected when we examine the final rankings for high school football in 2011 (one year prior to implemention of Rule 14 for competitive equity):
Class 5A - Bishop Kelly - top 8 (beaten in the 2011 state quarter-finals)
Class 4A - Bishop McGuinness - top 4 (beaten in the state semi-finals)
Class 3A - Cascia Hall #2
Class 2A - Lincoln Christian - top 8 (beaten in the state quarter-finals)
Class A - No private schools
Class B - No private schools
Class C - No private schools
As noted in state news a few weeks ago - the OSSAA has not been very good at gathering 'athlete concussion' data and analyzing that data in solving this student health crisis. The OSSAA has publicly stated that it's waiting for Texas UIL to study the problem before addressing it. It comes as no great shock that the OSSAA would 'drag its feet' in addressing the public/private competitive equity issue, if it has done the same thing for much more serious problems.
The OSSAA committee assigned to study the competitive equity issue and form a solution to the problem, listed one research article - "National Review of Interscholastic Competitive Balance Solutions Related to the Public-Private Debate" Volume 1, Issue 1, 2015 of the JOURNAL OF AMATEUR SPORT. The research document noted several methods by which state athletic associations have attempted to level the playing field for both public and private schools, including enrollment "multipliers" and "advancement" rules similar to Oklahoma. The research indicated, however, that most, if not all these enrollment based rules have failed to promote competitive equity. The document goes on to relate that "separate playoffs" for public and private schools is the "... only competitive balance solution to eliminate the public vs. private issue by isolating private schools to separate playoffs" (page 41). One must bear in mind that the OSSAA touted this research when devising its own competitive equity solution.
So, just what is the OSSAA's new competitive equity plan for leveling the playing field for all members? We've not seen it in print just yet, but a report by the competitive equity committee entails that it involves bumping the top four finishers in class 5A volleyball and tennis, to class 6A. To many OSSAA member schools, this plan looks like some sort of convoluted joke.
There are five private school volleyball teams in class 5A and twenty-seven public school teams. All five finished in the top eight, which means that two teams will move up to class 6A. (Three of the five were already playing up a class, so may not advance to class 6A.) The two lowest ADM class 6A volleyball teams will then 'bump down' to 5A, to replace the two 5A teams which advanced to 6A.
In related news, the NCAA has announced that it will create another division for college sports. In addition to Division I, II, and III for athletic competition levels based on scholarships and ability to recruit - there will now be Division IV, for those colleges which have a lot of 'out-of-state' players. It has been suggested that those schools such as the University of Oklahoma, which have a lot of 'move-ins', have an unfair advantage over those schools which do not (like Texas and USC). According to the NCAA, a large number of 'move-in' athletes does not promote competitive equity. Of course, this is fake news, and asinine for the NCAA to ever consider.
It was suggested to the OSSAA membership by an OSSAA official, however, that 'move-ins' create a tilted playing field in competition between member schools. In other words, competitive equity cannot be achieved without considering the number of 'move-in' players a team has. The official even provided my school as an example. I believe the official knows this is a ridiculous factor to consider when promoting competitive equity, but simply used it as a distraction from the real factors (providing student financial assistance and restricted enrollment). The same OSSAA official claimed we have published misleading, inaccurate, or emotionally charged information in the data above.
Update - October 31, 2019: We attended the OSSAA regional meeting at Westmoore high school. The OSSAA's plan for tweaking Rule 14 (Competitive Equity) involves advancing the top four finishers in 5A volleyball and tennis to class 6A, just as we expected. The class 6A traditional public schools in attendance were unhappy with the OSSAA suggestion. They believe that this new Rule 14 will lead to a "super-class" of volleyball and tennis teams in the OSSAA. The OSSAA's response was that there is already a super-class in class 5A, indicating that we'll now have two super-classes for volleyball. The OSSAA indicated it will probably send the new competitive equity plan out to vote of the membership, but there are many class 6A schools which will vote 'No', and countless other schools which will vote 'No', because the new Rule 14 tweaker does nothing to address the real problem - competitive equity in the OSSAA. In fact, the OSSAA's analysis of the data indicates that the competitive equity problem has been solved for all other sports. The competitive equity problem for member schools has not been solved for any sports!
Update - November 13, 2019: For the 2019 football playoffs, fifteen of the twenty private schools made the playoffs, or 75%. Only about 52% of the public schools are playoff bound.
Monday, October 14, 2019
Life Perspectives - George and Alpha
I often espouse my opinions and lament about public school issues in this column, but sometimes relate personal views and perspectives of events which have affected us all at one time or another. Every now and then something happens to each of us which causes a realignment of what is really important in life. It seems that those life-changing events happen at a faster rate when we get older. Twenty-five years ago, my twelve year old nephew, Austin Beckham, tragically died from an accidental gunshot. I still haven't fully recovered. The child's father (my brother) hasn't either, but he was the strongest I've ever seen in dealing with this tragedy.
I suppose some people have such an inner strength and faith, that they actually become stronger when faced with adversity. Such is the case of my brother... and Glenn Floyd, who lost two young daughters in a house fire in the 1970's. I asked both my brother and Glenn how they recovered from such a personal tragedy, and their answers were the same - Faith in God and work. People also must have another reason to continue on, and its usually for others. In other words, when something tragically happens to a loved one, most people actually become stronger and more faithful for their loved ones still around them. It is when this reason for living disappears, that many couples leave us at the same time.
George Ingram, my brother-in-law, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer about three months ago. A pancreatic cancer diagnosis is most often a death sentence in the majority of cases, but George fought valiantly with the help of his wife Alpha. Unfortunately, George succumbed to the disease at the end of September. The battle was gut-wrenching for George as well as Alpha, and it took its toll on her. George was 63 at the time of his passing, and Alpha was 58 (still young by my standards).
On Wednesday, October 2, 2019, a neighbor found Alpha unresponsive in her home. She was transported to the hospital and placed in intensive care. My wife Sherrie (Alpha's sister) went to the hospital to support Alpha. Sherrie stayed with her for several days. The next week, on Tuesday evening, as Sherrie was taking a break to eat, Alpha called her from the hospital and said she was dying. Sherrie rushed back to the hospital to see Alpha and try to comfort her. That night, Alpha "coded" and became comatose. The doctors and nurses did everything they could over the next several hours to save her, but at around 10 AM on October 9 - they decided that they could only make her comfortable during her last few hours. Sherrie asked them to stop extraordinary life-support at around 12:50 PM. Alpha left us at 1 PM on October 9, and is now with her husband George - where she always wanted to be.
I suppose some people have such an inner strength and faith, that they actually become stronger when faced with adversity. Such is the case of my brother... and Glenn Floyd, who lost two young daughters in a house fire in the 1970's. I asked both my brother and Glenn how they recovered from such a personal tragedy, and their answers were the same - Faith in God and work. People also must have another reason to continue on, and its usually for others. In other words, when something tragically happens to a loved one, most people actually become stronger and more faithful for their loved ones still around them. It is when this reason for living disappears, that many couples leave us at the same time.
George Ingram, my brother-in-law, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer about three months ago. A pancreatic cancer diagnosis is most often a death sentence in the majority of cases, but George fought valiantly with the help of his wife Alpha. Unfortunately, George succumbed to the disease at the end of September. The battle was gut-wrenching for George as well as Alpha, and it took its toll on her. George was 63 at the time of his passing, and Alpha was 58 (still young by my standards).
On Wednesday, October 2, 2019, a neighbor found Alpha unresponsive in her home. She was transported to the hospital and placed in intensive care. My wife Sherrie (Alpha's sister) went to the hospital to support Alpha. Sherrie stayed with her for several days. The next week, on Tuesday evening, as Sherrie was taking a break to eat, Alpha called her from the hospital and said she was dying. Sherrie rushed back to the hospital to see Alpha and try to comfort her. That night, Alpha "coded" and became comatose. The doctors and nurses did everything they could over the next several hours to save her, but at around 10 AM on October 9 - they decided that they could only make her comfortable during her last few hours. Sherrie asked them to stop extraordinary life-support at around 12:50 PM. Alpha left us at 1 PM on October 9, and is now with her husband George - where she always wanted to be.
Monday, September 16, 2019
Epic Conflicts of Interest
As noted in the news, Epic Virtual and Blended Charter Schools continue to be investigated by the FBI, OSBI, and State Auditor and Inspector, for embezzlement of state funds, racketeering, and related crimes. The investigations may be hampered by potential "conflicts of interest", however, as acquired information has been slow in coming, as those who could be implicated have a lot of money to lose.
Those which may have a lot to lose if Epic owners are eventually held accountable for Epic transgressions could be:
1) Brad Clark, the current legal counsel for the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE). Clark was the attorney for Ben Harris and David Chaney, aka Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, in a lawsuit against the University of Central Oklahoma for withdrawing its contract to be the sponsor of Epic in 2010. At that time he was employed by the Bill Hickman Law Firm which represented Butch and Sundance in 2010. Brad Clark's wife, Tiffany, is currently Epic's Contract Compliance Clerk. Clark contributed $700 to Joy Hofmeister's re-election campaign in 2018. Does Clark have a conflict of interest and a lot to lose if Epic players are indicted? Remember, Brad Clark was the OSDE employee who handed over Oklahoma teachers' personal information to Epic only a few months ago.
In a July 12, 2019, Tulsa World article Brad Clark is quoted as saying that, by law, blended learning charter schools (such as Epic's Blended Learning Center) "are subject to the same attendance requirements as traditional charter schools". On August 13, 2019, in a correspondence to a State Senator, Clark contradicted his earlier statement by saying "It appears that Epic-Rose State (BLC) has adopted an attendance policy that parallels that which has been adopted by Epic One on One Virtual as required pursuant to 70 OS 3-145.8." However, the Contract for Epic Blended Charter-Rose State College 2017-2022 requires compliance to 70 OS 3-136.
70 OS 3-136 (11) requires compliance to 70 OS 1-109: 180 Instructional Days or 1080 hours.
70 OS 1-109 requires compliance to 70 OS 1-111: 6 Hour school day.
In a September 20, 2019, Tulsa World article Epic Charter Schools sends state senator 'cease and desist demand' letter, "An attorney for Epic Charter Schools issued a 'cease and desist demand' letter to a state senator who has been raising questions about the legality of the school's student attendance practices..." An excerpt from the letter reads - "You are hereby put on notice to cease and desist all defamation of Epic, Its staff and false accusations related to the school." Epic attorney Bill Hickman wrote the letter. Brad Clark, the OSDE legal counsel, was employed by Bill Hickman before being employed by the OSDE. Could this be the conflict of interest involved when Clark readily handed over teacher personal information to Shelly Hickman, assistant superintendent at Epic and the wife of Bill Hickman, a few months ago?
When public schools require legal guidance to answer questions or provide a course of legal action, they usually employ a law firm or attorney. Since most schools retain legal expertise to address legal issues, and since public schools are run by elected school boards - boards retain the soul authority to direct legal action. Epic Public Schools has two School Boards to direct such legal action - Epic One on One Virtual Charter School Board and Epic Blended Charter School Board. The (Bill) Hickman Law Group may be on legal retainer with either or both of Epic's Boards to address legal issues as indicated in the 'cease and desist demand letter', but nowhere can it be found in either Board's minutes that the Hickman Law Group was directed to address the Epic legal issue outlined in the letter. If the Hickman Law Group is acting without the authorization to act, and spending taxpayer dollars without Board authorization, does this constitute fraudulent correspondence? If the Hickman Law Group has used the US Postal Service to deliver such unauthorized legal correspondence or action against a State Senator - does the correspondence or threatened legal action constitute federal mail fraud? Many school law experts believe the answer to both questions is yes.
Another question which may only be answered by the Attorney General's office or a district attorney is: The Hickman Law Group, retained by Epic Public Schools, has evidently acted without appropriate board approval. Does this act constitute a violation of the Open Meetings Act, 25 O.S. Sections 301-314? Since the Hickman Law Group may be retained by private entities (Ben Harris and David Chaney), it may not constitute a violation of the Open Meetings Act. Once again, though, The Hickman Law Group claims to be retained by Epic Public Schools, not Harris or Chaney, so should be directed by the Epic School Board(s). It also appears that no authority has been provided to the superintendent of Epic to direct such legal activity.
2) Joy Hofmeister, State Superintendent of Schools. Fact #1 - Since 2014, Joy Hofmeister received almost $50,000 from Ben Harris, David Chaney and their spouses, and Epic lobbyists, in campaign funds to favor Epic in all education decisions. Fact #2 - According to a Tulsa World article on July 25, 2019, Swink school district facing forced consolidation says Epic leader offered a rescue: 'I'm in pretty good with Joy'. A Swink school board member is quoted "I got a call from Ben Harris (of Epic) about two weeks ago. He had heard that we were in trouble, and he was offering the possibility to annex into Panola, the little district they already control. I told him, I'm a one man board. Everyone else has resigned, and I can't make any decisions. The (state) Department of Education is going to destroy us. He (Ben) said, 'If you're interested in this, I'm in pretty good with Joy (Hofmeister). I can get this done."
We have questions for Joy Hofmeister or Brad Clark (OSDE legal counsel): The Statewide Virtual Charter (school) Board has recently approved 22 additional learning and testing sites for Epic, which includes Blanchard and Durant. Are these Epic Public School buildings exempt from property taxation? Does Epic Public Schools pay its rent using Oklahoma tax dollars?
Update October 9, 2019 - Prior to the election of Joy Hofmeister as State School Superintendent in 2014, Janet Barresi (prior State Superintendent) directly told Ben Harris and David Chaney (Epic co-owners) that they could not open new Epic Learning Centers (such as currently opening in Blanchard and Durant) using tax payer dollars. Our question is: Has Joy Hofmeister told them the same thing?, or was Ben Harris accurate when he said "I'm in pretty good with Joy"? An Oklahoma State Department of Education insider told us that it's all related to campaign donations - campaign donations to legislators who may have passed favorable legislation for allowing Epic to open the public schools. What the insider didn't say was "it's all related to campaign donations to Oklahoma Legislators and the State Superintendent". We're left to wonder if it is?.. or isn't?
Update October 22, 2019 - In an interview with 'News 9 Investigates' on Thursday, October 17, Joy Hofmeister is quoted as saying "To see those (tax) dollars being used, not to recruit new teachers with advertising dollars, but aggressively recruiting students to build a business, that is the piece that I think is difficult to square -- that's what I have a problem with." Evidently, Ben Harris is not so "in pretty good with Joy" as he thought he was on July 25. The $50,000 in campaign donations that Ben and company provided Joy is looking like a big waste of money. It won't be long before Ben pens a letter to the Daily Oklahoman decrying how Joy Hofmeister is misleading state tax payers. David Chaney, Epic co-owner, did the same thing to Mary Fallin in 2012, when she opposed Epic racketeering at that time.
Those which may have a lot to lose if Epic owners are eventually held accountable for Epic transgressions could be:
1) Brad Clark, the current legal counsel for the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE). Clark was the attorney for Ben Harris and David Chaney, aka Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, in a lawsuit against the University of Central Oklahoma for withdrawing its contract to be the sponsor of Epic in 2010. At that time he was employed by the Bill Hickman Law Firm which represented Butch and Sundance in 2010. Brad Clark's wife, Tiffany, is currently Epic's Contract Compliance Clerk. Clark contributed $700 to Joy Hofmeister's re-election campaign in 2018. Does Clark have a conflict of interest and a lot to lose if Epic players are indicted? Remember, Brad Clark was the OSDE employee who handed over Oklahoma teachers' personal information to Epic only a few months ago.
In a July 12, 2019, Tulsa World article Brad Clark is quoted as saying that, by law, blended learning charter schools (such as Epic's Blended Learning Center) "are subject to the same attendance requirements as traditional charter schools". On August 13, 2019, in a correspondence to a State Senator, Clark contradicted his earlier statement by saying "It appears that Epic-Rose State (BLC) has adopted an attendance policy that parallels that which has been adopted by Epic One on One Virtual as required pursuant to 70 OS 3-145.8." However, the Contract for Epic Blended Charter-Rose State College 2017-2022 requires compliance to 70 OS 3-136.
70 OS 3-136 (11) requires compliance to 70 OS 1-109: 180 Instructional Days or 1080 hours.
70 OS 1-109 requires compliance to 70 OS 1-111: 6 Hour school day.
In a September 20, 2019, Tulsa World article Epic Charter Schools sends state senator 'cease and desist demand' letter, "An attorney for Epic Charter Schools issued a 'cease and desist demand' letter to a state senator who has been raising questions about the legality of the school's student attendance practices..." An excerpt from the letter reads - "You are hereby put on notice to cease and desist all defamation of Epic, Its staff and false accusations related to the school." Epic attorney Bill Hickman wrote the letter. Brad Clark, the OSDE legal counsel, was employed by Bill Hickman before being employed by the OSDE. Could this be the conflict of interest involved when Clark readily handed over teacher personal information to Shelly Hickman, assistant superintendent at Epic and the wife of Bill Hickman, a few months ago?
When public schools require legal guidance to answer questions or provide a course of legal action, they usually employ a law firm or attorney. Since most schools retain legal expertise to address legal issues, and since public schools are run by elected school boards - boards retain the soul authority to direct legal action. Epic Public Schools has two School Boards to direct such legal action - Epic One on One Virtual Charter School Board and Epic Blended Charter School Board. The (Bill) Hickman Law Group may be on legal retainer with either or both of Epic's Boards to address legal issues as indicated in the 'cease and desist demand letter', but nowhere can it be found in either Board's minutes that the Hickman Law Group was directed to address the Epic legal issue outlined in the letter. If the Hickman Law Group is acting without the authorization to act, and spending taxpayer dollars without Board authorization, does this constitute fraudulent correspondence? If the Hickman Law Group has used the US Postal Service to deliver such unauthorized legal correspondence or action against a State Senator - does the correspondence or threatened legal action constitute federal mail fraud? Many school law experts believe the answer to both questions is yes.
Another question which may only be answered by the Attorney General's office or a district attorney is: The Hickman Law Group, retained by Epic Public Schools, has evidently acted without appropriate board approval. Does this act constitute a violation of the Open Meetings Act, 25 O.S. Sections 301-314? Since the Hickman Law Group may be retained by private entities (Ben Harris and David Chaney), it may not constitute a violation of the Open Meetings Act. Once again, though, The Hickman Law Group claims to be retained by Epic Public Schools, not Harris or Chaney, so should be directed by the Epic School Board(s). It also appears that no authority has been provided to the superintendent of Epic to direct such legal activity.
2) Joy Hofmeister, State Superintendent of Schools. Fact #1 - Since 2014, Joy Hofmeister received almost $50,000 from Ben Harris, David Chaney and their spouses, and Epic lobbyists, in campaign funds to favor Epic in all education decisions. Fact #2 - According to a Tulsa World article on July 25, 2019, Swink school district facing forced consolidation says Epic leader offered a rescue: 'I'm in pretty good with Joy'. A Swink school board member is quoted "I got a call from Ben Harris (of Epic) about two weeks ago. He had heard that we were in trouble, and he was offering the possibility to annex into Panola, the little district they already control. I told him, I'm a one man board. Everyone else has resigned, and I can't make any decisions. The (state) Department of Education is going to destroy us. He (Ben) said, 'If you're interested in this, I'm in pretty good with Joy (Hofmeister). I can get this done."
We have questions for Joy Hofmeister or Brad Clark (OSDE legal counsel): The Statewide Virtual Charter (school) Board has recently approved 22 additional learning and testing sites for Epic, which includes Blanchard and Durant. Are these Epic Public School buildings exempt from property taxation? Does Epic Public Schools pay its rent using Oklahoma tax dollars?
Update October 9, 2019 - Prior to the election of Joy Hofmeister as State School Superintendent in 2014, Janet Barresi (prior State Superintendent) directly told Ben Harris and David Chaney (Epic co-owners) that they could not open new Epic Learning Centers (such as currently opening in Blanchard and Durant) using tax payer dollars. Our question is: Has Joy Hofmeister told them the same thing?, or was Ben Harris accurate when he said "I'm in pretty good with Joy"? An Oklahoma State Department of Education insider told us that it's all related to campaign donations - campaign donations to legislators who may have passed favorable legislation for allowing Epic to open the public schools. What the insider didn't say was "it's all related to campaign donations to Oklahoma Legislators and the State Superintendent". We're left to wonder if it is?.. or isn't?
Update October 22, 2019 - In an interview with 'News 9 Investigates' on Thursday, October 17, Joy Hofmeister is quoted as saying "To see those (tax) dollars being used, not to recruit new teachers with advertising dollars, but aggressively recruiting students to build a business, that is the piece that I think is difficult to square -- that's what I have a problem with." Evidently, Ben Harris is not so "in pretty good with Joy" as he thought he was on July 25. The $50,000 in campaign donations that Ben and company provided Joy is looking like a big waste of money. It won't be long before Ben pens a letter to the Daily Oklahoman decrying how Joy Hofmeister is misleading state tax payers. David Chaney, Epic co-owner, did the same thing to Mary Fallin in 2012, when she opposed Epic racketeering at that time.
Tuesday, September 3, 2019
More Epic Unanswered Questions
By now most people know the OSBI, FBI, Oklahoma County District Attorney's office, and maybe the Securities Commission has several questions for Epic Virtual Charter Schools. Questions concerning racketeering, embezzlement of state funds, falsification of records, ghost students, etc., are all questions that Epic will eventually answer. We have several education related questions that have been previously posed, however, and are still awaiting answers.
1) Article 10, Section 15 of the Oklahoma Constitution states "... the credit of the State shall not be given, pledged, or loaned to any individual... nor shall the State.. make donation by gift...". In addition State Law 70-16-121 states "... all textbooks (and computers) shall be owned by such (school) districts...". How does Epic explain gifting more than 6,000 laptop computers and more than $3,000,000 to individuals?
2) Epic has reported class sizes of 25 to 30 students per teacher. Five (5) Epic high school teachers are reported as having over 2,000 students each. Epic, please explain?
3) State Law prohibits a school of Epic proportions to exceed 5% in administrative costs. The August 2017 auditor's report, however, reflected that Epic accrued 13.28% in administrative costs. How did Epic avoid a penalty for exceeding the limit for administrative costs?
While certainly not as important as the questions the OSBI and FBI has for Epic, our questions concerning education also remain unanswered.
1) Article 10, Section 15 of the Oklahoma Constitution states "... the credit of the State shall not be given, pledged, or loaned to any individual... nor shall the State.. make donation by gift...". In addition State Law 70-16-121 states "... all textbooks (and computers) shall be owned by such (school) districts...". How does Epic explain gifting more than 6,000 laptop computers and more than $3,000,000 to individuals?
2) Epic has reported class sizes of 25 to 30 students per teacher. Five (5) Epic high school teachers are reported as having over 2,000 students each. Epic, please explain?
3) State Law prohibits a school of Epic proportions to exceed 5% in administrative costs. The August 2017 auditor's report, however, reflected that Epic accrued 13.28% in administrative costs. How did Epic avoid a penalty for exceeding the limit for administrative costs?
While certainly not as important as the questions the OSBI and FBI has for Epic, our questions concerning education also remain unanswered.
Sunday, August 18, 2019
First Day of School 2019-2020
Most Oklahoma Public Schools began the 2019-2020 school year the week of August 13. Blanchard Public Schools began the first day for students on Thursday, August 16, and I still get excited anticipating that beginning. Whether it's seeing parents deliver their children to school, kids disembarking from buses, or seeing the jr. hi kids practicing football or participating in other activities that began before 8 AM - I still look forward to the first day.
I still look forward to the first day of school, even though this is my 52nd first day - 12 first days as a student in Lindsay and 40 first days as a teacher, coach, or administrator. My most memorable first day of school was in 1965 as a second grader in Lindsay. The day began with my mother, Mary, putting my younger sister Dana and me on the bus at around 7:30 AM. Our driver's name was Mr. Simkoff. School started at 9 AM, but the route took about an hour and a half to run because we lived 7 miles from town and it always took the long way. Mom told us she would meet us at the front doors of the school to escort us to our classroom upon arrival. We had no idea where our classrooms were as we had not visited earlier. It would be a new experience for Dana, since she had never even seen the building.
After a more than one hour bone jarring ride east along Rush Creek and north to school - we arrived. How exciting! Even more exciting was the fact that mom was nowhere in sight as we unloaded. We looked left and right, but mom WAS NOT THERE. I panicked, but Dana remained quite calm as I took her hand and said "I know where to go". (It was my same hand that Dana took a baseball bat to a couple years earlier for taking her toy.) We walked directly south down the elementary hallway to the principal's office (about half a mile), as I thought that someone there may be able to direct us. Somewhere along the way, mom caught up to us and took us to our respective classes. My teacher's name was Mrs. Walker and she made me feel right at home. While I'm still not sure why mom was late, my first day of my second grade year started off with a bang.
I've had many more memorable first days since that traumatic experience in second grade, but that one seems to be burned in my memory. The positive part is that it was good for me..
I still look forward to the first day of school, even though this is my 52nd first day - 12 first days as a student in Lindsay and 40 first days as a teacher, coach, or administrator. My most memorable first day of school was in 1965 as a second grader in Lindsay. The day began with my mother, Mary, putting my younger sister Dana and me on the bus at around 7:30 AM. Our driver's name was Mr. Simkoff. School started at 9 AM, but the route took about an hour and a half to run because we lived 7 miles from town and it always took the long way. Mom told us she would meet us at the front doors of the school to escort us to our classroom upon arrival. We had no idea where our classrooms were as we had not visited earlier. It would be a new experience for Dana, since she had never even seen the building.
After a more than one hour bone jarring ride east along Rush Creek and north to school - we arrived. How exciting! Even more exciting was the fact that mom was nowhere in sight as we unloaded. We looked left and right, but mom WAS NOT THERE. I panicked, but Dana remained quite calm as I took her hand and said "I know where to go". (It was my same hand that Dana took a baseball bat to a couple years earlier for taking her toy.) We walked directly south down the elementary hallway to the principal's office (about half a mile), as I thought that someone there may be able to direct us. Somewhere along the way, mom caught up to us and took us to our respective classes. My teacher's name was Mrs. Walker and she made me feel right at home. While I'm still not sure why mom was late, my first day of my second grade year started off with a bang.
I've had many more memorable first days since that traumatic experience in second grade, but that one seems to be burned in my memory. The positive part is that it was good for me..
Wednesday, August 14, 2019
OSSAA Indignation
The OSSAA Board gathered on August 14, 2019 for its regular meeting. Among the items discussed was the public/private competitive equity committee recommendations for re-considering the effectiveness of Rule 14 - in providing more equitable competition classifications. And guess what? It's almost perfect.. No major changes needed..
As a matter of fact, Rule 14 was judged effective for "leveling the playing field" in all sports, except for tennis and volleyball - I think.. because no one was provided a copy of the research data and analysis. I requested a copy of the report, but was told I'd have to wait until it's posted on the website. We will not be able to test for validity and reliability of the committee's analysis nor check for errors until the report is provided, but we can comment on some other research conducted to answer the same question. The documents may be studied here and here, and represent a valid and reliable analysis for two sports - football and baseball. It was conducted in consultation with some of the same researchers from the University of Oklahoma and elsewhere, who invalidated the school A-F grading scheme a few years back. The recommended methodology (correlation analysis) was utilized in running a quantitative study in judging the effectiveness of Rule 14 for providing competitive equity between schools which provide financial assistance to students and/or restrict enrollment and those which do not. There exists both private schools and public schools in both comparative groups. I sincerely hope that the OSSAA will consider valid and reliable research as well as the analysis provided by the Committee. When the OSSAA deems it appropriate to provide that research and analysis, we will forward that document to researchers at OU and OSU for closer study.
Back to the OSSAA meeting on August 14: At the conclusion of the committee's report, I stood to provide a copy of our own analysis of the effectiveness of Rule 14 for providing competitive equity for all schools. This analysis directly contradicted the committee's analysis for most sports. I was told that no public comment would be allowed concerning the committee report, but I was only providing our analysis to the executive director. I was then told to provide the report to the "minutes clerk", Amy Cassell, instead of the board or the executive director. I complied with the order.
Interestingly, the OSSAA bills itself as a private, non-profit organization. Examples of private non-profits would be the Walton Family Foundation, Gates Foundation, and others, which are really "profitable" non-profits. Since the OSSAA is a private organization, it has the ability to disallow public comments concerning agenda items, so the fact that it doesn't allow public input or even membership input on issues concerning it's public schools - is certainly justified. What is truly puzzling, however, is that most if not all of the superintendent directors on its board allow public comments at their own school board meetings. Even the State Board of Education usually has two "hearing of the public" items at its board meetings.
The OSSAA said it would be forwarding the committee report and recommendations to the regional meetings in October - for garnering support. Bear in mind that all we know right now about the report and recommendations is what flashed across the screen during the report. The regional meetings are scheduled at Woodward... Oct. 14, Elk City... Oct.15, Cache... Oct.16, Ponca City... Oct. 21, Adair... Oct. 22, Jenks... Oct. 23, Henryetta... Oct. 24, Ardmore... Oct. 28, Kiowa... Oct. 29, Antlers... Oct.30, Westmore... Oct. 31.
Update August 22, 2019: The research and related documents which indicate that only "country club" sports should be re-classified, has now been posted on the OSSAA website. The committee determined that Rule 14 has been effective for leveling the playing field in all other sports. We will be forwarding the committee's research and subsequent analysis to OU and/or OSU education researchers for review.
As a matter of fact, Rule 14 was judged effective for "leveling the playing field" in all sports, except for tennis and volleyball - I think.. because no one was provided a copy of the research data and analysis. I requested a copy of the report, but was told I'd have to wait until it's posted on the website. We will not be able to test for validity and reliability of the committee's analysis nor check for errors until the report is provided, but we can comment on some other research conducted to answer the same question. The documents may be studied here and here, and represent a valid and reliable analysis for two sports - football and baseball. It was conducted in consultation with some of the same researchers from the University of Oklahoma and elsewhere, who invalidated the school A-F grading scheme a few years back. The recommended methodology (correlation analysis) was utilized in running a quantitative study in judging the effectiveness of Rule 14 for providing competitive equity between schools which provide financial assistance to students and/or restrict enrollment and those which do not. There exists both private schools and public schools in both comparative groups. I sincerely hope that the OSSAA will consider valid and reliable research as well as the analysis provided by the Committee. When the OSSAA deems it appropriate to provide that research and analysis, we will forward that document to researchers at OU and OSU for closer study.
Back to the OSSAA meeting on August 14: At the conclusion of the committee's report, I stood to provide a copy of our own analysis of the effectiveness of Rule 14 for providing competitive equity for all schools. This analysis directly contradicted the committee's analysis for most sports. I was told that no public comment would be allowed concerning the committee report, but I was only providing our analysis to the executive director. I was then told to provide the report to the "minutes clerk", Amy Cassell, instead of the board or the executive director. I complied with the order.
Interestingly, the OSSAA bills itself as a private, non-profit organization. Examples of private non-profits would be the Walton Family Foundation, Gates Foundation, and others, which are really "profitable" non-profits. Since the OSSAA is a private organization, it has the ability to disallow public comments concerning agenda items, so the fact that it doesn't allow public input or even membership input on issues concerning it's public schools - is certainly justified. What is truly puzzling, however, is that most if not all of the superintendent directors on its board allow public comments at their own school board meetings. Even the State Board of Education usually has two "hearing of the public" items at its board meetings.
The OSSAA said it would be forwarding the committee report and recommendations to the regional meetings in October - for garnering support. Bear in mind that all we know right now about the report and recommendations is what flashed across the screen during the report. The regional meetings are scheduled at Woodward... Oct. 14, Elk City... Oct.15, Cache... Oct.16, Ponca City... Oct. 21, Adair... Oct. 22, Jenks... Oct. 23, Henryetta... Oct. 24, Ardmore... Oct. 28, Kiowa... Oct. 29, Antlers... Oct.30, Westmore... Oct. 31.
Update August 22, 2019: The research and related documents which indicate that only "country club" sports should be re-classified, has now been posted on the OSSAA website. The committee determined that Rule 14 has been effective for leveling the playing field in all other sports. We will be forwarding the committee's research and subsequent analysis to OU and/or OSU education researchers for review.
Sunday, August 4, 2019
Epic Pyramid Exposed
We first recognized the "Epic pyramid duck" in a column on July 7, 2018, and may be read here. Illegal pyramid schemes offer no products for sale, but rely on recruiting more and more investors to keep the pyramid going. The investors are Oklahoma tax payers, and the recruiters are teachers and enrolled students who are paid "bonuses" for recruiting more students. Each student enrolled is worth about $5,000 to Epic Virtual and Blended Charter Schools. If Epic enrolls about 22,000 students, it receives about $110 million in state aid, or profits. The pyramid scheme is simple, but ingenious - the base of the pyramid are the recruiters, teachers and students who receive bonuses for each new student recruited. Enrolled students receive $200 for each "referral" and teachers receive $400 for each student referral. When a new student enrolls in Epic, one question on the enrollment form is "Who referred you to Epic?". The new student simply names the teacher or student who referred him or her. A student gets $200 added to his or her "education fund", which is nothing more than a checking account, and a teacher gets a $400 bonus for each student.
The next level up on the pyramid would be the mid-level administrators, which include team leaders and principals. Advancing upward one more level include the upper level administrators, superintendent, assistant superintendents, lobbyists, and attorneys. Finally, at the peak of the pyramid sits the owners, Ben Harris and David Chaney. Also included, outside the pyramid, but very important to its structure are the enablers, elected officials - State Reps, Senators, State Superintendent of Schools, Governor, etc., who receive a "cut" for enabling legislation or willful blindness. A column describing "willful blindness" can be read here.
This last week, in addition to visiting with parents of Epic students, I discussed the "Epic Pyramid Duck" with a former Epic teacher. The teacher told me that he or she was just fired from Epic even before the first year of employment was complete. The teacher had received another job in a traditional public school, so felt free to speak. Teacher told me that he (or she) was on the "do not re-hire" list because of unspecified reasons. It's a fact that first year teachers are not afforded the same "due process" rights as veteran teachers, so no reason for being fired must be given. The belief is that he or she was fired because a large amount of bonus money was owed (80 students at $400 per student = $32,000), and Epic would not be forced pay it if the teacher was fired before the end of the year. The 80 students the teacher was responsible for recruiting and teaching, were simply reassigned to other teachers (who would not receive the bonus). The teacher should have received approximately $38,000 regular salary + $32,000 bonus = $70,000. The "bonus money" was simply bumped up the pyramid, probably to Harris and Chaney, after the teacher was fired. The teacher (bottom level of the pyramid) probably would have earned more than several mid-level administrators (next level up), and the pyramid tends to fall apart when that happens, hence the firing.
A typical $5,000 student is distributed on the pyramid with the teacher (first level) receiving about $800, the student (first level) receiving about $900 - $1,000, second level administrators receive about $1,000, third pyramid level administrators - $1,700, and the two peak owners receive about $500 per student, or $11 million total!
By firing the aforementioned teacher, the Epic owners payed themselves about $32,000 more... Think about that - if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck, or pyramid scheme in this case. Follow the money...
The next level up on the pyramid would be the mid-level administrators, which include team leaders and principals. Advancing upward one more level include the upper level administrators, superintendent, assistant superintendents, lobbyists, and attorneys. Finally, at the peak of the pyramid sits the owners, Ben Harris and David Chaney. Also included, outside the pyramid, but very important to its structure are the enablers, elected officials - State Reps, Senators, State Superintendent of Schools, Governor, etc., who receive a "cut" for enabling legislation or willful blindness. A column describing "willful blindness" can be read here.
This last week, in addition to visiting with parents of Epic students, I discussed the "Epic Pyramid Duck" with a former Epic teacher. The teacher told me that he or she was just fired from Epic even before the first year of employment was complete. The teacher had received another job in a traditional public school, so felt free to speak. Teacher told me that he (or she) was on the "do not re-hire" list because of unspecified reasons. It's a fact that first year teachers are not afforded the same "due process" rights as veteran teachers, so no reason for being fired must be given. The belief is that he or she was fired because a large amount of bonus money was owed (80 students at $400 per student = $32,000), and Epic would not be forced pay it if the teacher was fired before the end of the year. The 80 students the teacher was responsible for recruiting and teaching, were simply reassigned to other teachers (who would not receive the bonus). The teacher should have received approximately $38,000 regular salary + $32,000 bonus = $70,000. The "bonus money" was simply bumped up the pyramid, probably to Harris and Chaney, after the teacher was fired. The teacher (bottom level of the pyramid) probably would have earned more than several mid-level administrators (next level up), and the pyramid tends to fall apart when that happens, hence the firing.
A typical $5,000 student is distributed on the pyramid with the teacher (first level) receiving about $800, the student (first level) receiving about $900 - $1,000, second level administrators receive about $1,000, third pyramid level administrators - $1,700, and the two peak owners receive about $500 per student, or $11 million total!
By firing the aforementioned teacher, the Epic owners payed themselves about $32,000 more... Think about that - if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck, or pyramid scheme in this case. Follow the money...
Tuesday, July 30, 2019
For the Epic Love of Money
I've received several messages from parents over the past year who are concerned about their children's education. The concerns have always been about Epic Virtual or Blended Charter Schools, and have come from all areas of the state. Also, the questions and concerns have usually been of two different varieties. For instance, one parent lamented that even though his or her child had received A's and B's while attending Epic, the child was suddenly and without explanation, dropped from the roll. The question for me was "Why?". I do not know the answer, but I suspect it is about"money". The parent suspects it is because the child doesn't test well. It could be a little bit of both. When an Epic student is dropped from the rolls, the school may have already received the funding to educate said child. The child is not counted as a full academic year (FAY) student if dropped, so doesn't count against the school's test scores and A-F letter grade. The child is usually allowed to re-enroll, and the cycle starts over again - 1) child enrolls 2) Epic receives money 3) Epic drops child, no FAY 4) child re-enrolls. It's not only a cycle, but a vicious cycle - a money making racket.
Another parent contacted me concerned that he or she received a phone call from Epic, even though Epic was never contacted by the parent. Epic asked the parent if enrollment in Epic was to proceed. (The parent had been home-schooling the student, so was not enrolled in any public school at the time.) The parent was also concerned that Epic may have the ability to "drop" the student from enrollment at another public school, without the parent's knowledge or consent. While I don't think Epic has that authority, nothing surprises me any more. My suspicion is that Epic's recruiting antics are also all about money and once again involves the Epic racketeering cycle - 1) child enrolls 2) Epic receives money 3) Epic drops child 4) child re-enrolls 5) Epic receives more money...
Follow the money!
Another parent contacted me concerned that he or she received a phone call from Epic, even though Epic was never contacted by the parent. Epic asked the parent if enrollment in Epic was to proceed. (The parent had been home-schooling the student, so was not enrolled in any public school at the time.) The parent was also concerned that Epic may have the ability to "drop" the student from enrollment at another public school, without the parent's knowledge or consent. While I don't think Epic has that authority, nothing surprises me any more. My suspicion is that Epic's recruiting antics are also all about money and once again involves the Epic racketeering cycle - 1) child enrolls 2) Epic receives money 3) Epic drops child 4) child re-enrolls 5) Epic receives more money...
Follow the money!
Monday, July 29, 2019
Willful Blindness and Racketeering
Willful blindness is a term used in law to describe a situation in which a person seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally keeping himself or herself unaware of facts that would render him or her liable. Individuals may be willfully blind for a number of reasons including - the individual has received money to look the other way, or the individual is a silent partner in illegal activities and doesn't want exposure.
"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything" - Albert Einstein. "Those who watch without doing anything" may often be scared to speak up, but are not willfully blind. Prior to WWII, there were a number of people who did not speak up as the Nazis carted their friends off to concentration camps. They were afraid to speak out against the barbaric practice, as doing so may have meant certain death or internment. Martin Niemoller, who spent seven years in a Nazi concentration camp, penned a poem "And there was no one left" in regret of not speaking out.
While not nearly as serious nor life-threatening, the situation with the alleged racketeering and embezzlement involving Epic Blended and Virtual Charter Schools still may incur willful blindness on the part of some individuals.
Satire may be described as the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. Satirical musings are always based on fact though, and the humor/ridicule is often utilized as a way to keep from crying. A satirical view of the conversation that may have taken place between Epic officials and those purchased individuals is needed to prevent depression. First, the facts: The Tulsa World reported that several Oklahoma elected officials willfully accepted more than $200,000 in campaign donations from Epic officials this past year. Among those willfully accepting taxpayer dollars were the State Superintendent, Joy Hofmeister (more than $50,000) and the Governor, Kevin Stitt (more than $10,000). Several others, including the Attorney General, an Oklahoma County District judge, and Oklahoma State Lawmakers, willfully accepted thousands of dollars from Epic officials. In the opinion of many Oklahomans - these tax dollars were paid to the recipients to be willfully blind of Epic's actions. It is important to note at this point that Ben Harris (Epic co-owner) stated to a small school board member "I'm in pretty good with Joy" as he offered a rescue for the small school. It is also notable that both Harris and David Chaney (Epic co-owner) may be seen in a photo with Kevin Stitt, looking like the three musketeers. It's sometimes sickening what money can buy. Noticeably absent from the Epic payroll is the State Auditor and Inspector, Cindy Byrd, and the Oklahoma County District Attorney, David Prater.
The setting for the conversation that could have taken place between Epic officials and those accepting campaign contributions is the Epic war room (probably the basement of the Epic corporate office building) -
Harris (co-owner of Epic, roll call) - Joy Hofmeister! (replies "here"), Governor Stitt! (replies "Sir, yes sir!), Judge Dred! (replies "present"), Cindy Byrd! (silence), David Prater! (silence)...
Harris (addressing David Chaney, co-owner of Epic) - Where are Byrd and Prater?
Chaney - We did not pay those two to be here.
Harris - Why not?
Chaney - We offered, but neither would accept tax dollars.
Harris - Everyone has a price... Did we not offer enough?
Chaney - I guess not, so we haven't tied up all the loose ends.
Hofmeister - Benji, I would appreciate you not saying "I'm in pretty good with Joy", the next time you're trying to takeover a small traditional public school.
Stitt (to Ben Harris) - How come I only got $10,000 and Joy got $50,000?
Harris (in exasperation) - Because you haven't earned it yet..
Stitt - I did say "I don't think your state funding needs to be changed".
Harris - I know.. That may get you a raise, but not $50,000.
Stitt - How about if I get you some funding from the Indian Casinos? Will that be worth the big bucks, like Joy?
Harris - We'll see...
Hofmeister - Speaking of raises.. I deserve more "willfully blind" money. It's getting harder and harder to keep pleading ignorance... and $50,000 is not enough to be "in good with Joy".. Maybe $100,000, and I'll consider it.
Chaney - Just keep working hard Governor, and soon you'll be able to afford a home in Cancun.. like me.
Of course this dialogue is fictitious but certainly could have taken place, as the facts are the facts... To follow the money, click here..
"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything" - Albert Einstein. "Those who watch without doing anything" may often be scared to speak up, but are not willfully blind. Prior to WWII, there were a number of people who did not speak up as the Nazis carted their friends off to concentration camps. They were afraid to speak out against the barbaric practice, as doing so may have meant certain death or internment. Martin Niemoller, who spent seven years in a Nazi concentration camp, penned a poem "And there was no one left" in regret of not speaking out.
While not nearly as serious nor life-threatening, the situation with the alleged racketeering and embezzlement involving Epic Blended and Virtual Charter Schools still may incur willful blindness on the part of some individuals.
Satire may be described as the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. Satirical musings are always based on fact though, and the humor/ridicule is often utilized as a way to keep from crying. A satirical view of the conversation that may have taken place between Epic officials and those purchased individuals is needed to prevent depression. First, the facts: The Tulsa World reported that several Oklahoma elected officials willfully accepted more than $200,000 in campaign donations from Epic officials this past year. Among those willfully accepting taxpayer dollars were the State Superintendent, Joy Hofmeister (more than $50,000) and the Governor, Kevin Stitt (more than $10,000). Several others, including the Attorney General, an Oklahoma County District judge, and Oklahoma State Lawmakers, willfully accepted thousands of dollars from Epic officials. In the opinion of many Oklahomans - these tax dollars were paid to the recipients to be willfully blind of Epic's actions. It is important to note at this point that Ben Harris (Epic co-owner) stated to a small school board member "I'm in pretty good with Joy" as he offered a rescue for the small school. It is also notable that both Harris and David Chaney (Epic co-owner) may be seen in a photo with Kevin Stitt, looking like the three musketeers. It's sometimes sickening what money can buy. Noticeably absent from the Epic payroll is the State Auditor and Inspector, Cindy Byrd, and the Oklahoma County District Attorney, David Prater.
The setting for the conversation that could have taken place between Epic officials and those accepting campaign contributions is the Epic war room (probably the basement of the Epic corporate office building) -
Harris (co-owner of Epic, roll call) - Joy Hofmeister! (replies "here"), Governor Stitt! (replies "Sir, yes sir!), Judge Dred! (replies "present"), Cindy Byrd! (silence), David Prater! (silence)...
Harris (addressing David Chaney, co-owner of Epic) - Where are Byrd and Prater?
Chaney - We did not pay those two to be here.
Harris - Why not?
Chaney - We offered, but neither would accept tax dollars.
Harris - Everyone has a price... Did we not offer enough?
Chaney - I guess not, so we haven't tied up all the loose ends.
Hofmeister - Benji, I would appreciate you not saying "I'm in pretty good with Joy", the next time you're trying to takeover a small traditional public school.
Stitt (to Ben Harris) - How come I only got $10,000 and Joy got $50,000?
Harris (in exasperation) - Because you haven't earned it yet..
Stitt - I did say "I don't think your state funding needs to be changed".
Harris - I know.. That may get you a raise, but not $50,000.
Stitt - How about if I get you some funding from the Indian Casinos? Will that be worth the big bucks, like Joy?
Harris - We'll see...
Hofmeister - Speaking of raises.. I deserve more "willfully blind" money. It's getting harder and harder to keep pleading ignorance... and $50,000 is not enough to be "in good with Joy".. Maybe $100,000, and I'll consider it.
Chaney - Just keep working hard Governor, and soon you'll be able to afford a home in Cancun.. like me.
Of course this dialogue is fictitious but certainly could have taken place, as the facts are the facts... To follow the money, click here..
Thursday, July 25, 2019
Epic Has Your Personal Information
Many of Oklahoma's 40,000 teachers are disturbed, and rightfully so, that traditional public school hater groups such as the OCPA - has teacher personal information. Just this past week, many traditional public school educators received - through their personal mail or personal e-mail accounts - a message from Ray Carter, journalist for the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. Mr. Carter begins -
When news broke that the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation had filed a search warrant accusing Epic Charter Schools of receiving state funding for "ghost students" who did not attend school through the online provider ..., it understandably drew concerns from all quarters.
But as that investigation proceeds, it has indirectly highlighted a less well-known fact: Many traditional public schools, all across Oklahoma, are receiving funding to educate similar "ghost students" who no longer attend those schools...
Before we address the "big lie" in the second paragraph above, we should determine how a "teacher hating group" acquired teacher personal information. The source was either Shelly Hickman, Epic Assistant Superintendent, who originally acquired the teacher information from Brad Clark, OSDE General Counsel, through an "open records" request several months ago - or the OSDE and Joy Hofmeister... through an "open records" request. Bear in mind that the OSDE was not required to provide the teacher personal information, as stated by Brad Clark, until a judge ordered it - but did so anyway. Epic has provided at least one Oklahoma County District Judge with campaign funds, so a judge may have eventually ordered the release of the personal teacher information, but maybe not. It is also important to note the connections and conflicts of interest in this case - Previous to being employed by the OSDE as Joy Hofmeister's attorney, Brad Clark was an attorney for Bill Hickman's private law group. Bill Hickman is the husband of Shelly Hickman, Epic Assistant Superintendent. And then there's this: Ben Harris, Epic School owner and being investigated by the OSBI for "racketeering", says "I'm in pretty good with Joy" while offering to "rescue" Swink school district from consolidation. Another connection?
The Big Lie:
Ray "Ray Ray" Carter was an editorial columnist for the Daily Oklahoman, before being employed by the OCPA to post negative traditional public school articles, some of which are lies. He is also the husband of Jennifer Carter, Janet Barresi's former Chief of Staff. Oklahoma State Senator Ron Sharp, a public school teacher for 38 years, knows "a thing or two" about public school funding and pyramid schemes in public schools, responded to Ray's article:
Yes Sir! Your article was excellent with contained valid points to consider.
However, a traditional public is attempting to provide a service the public demands the highest of standards. And, rightfully should be anticipated by our State taxpayers. They want a positive return on their investment!
However, there is not a profit motive in the traditional public schools. It is all to provide the best public education possible within the level of funding provided.
The apparent motive for the OSBI investigation into Epic Youth Services LLC appears to be the profit to the for-profit company's owners.
Dual enrollment in Epic and a private school, as reported in the OSBI document, is by willful intent to commit fraud and the subsequent embezzlement of State dollars, if the allegation(s) is proven.
A traditional public school superintendent, nor the teachers in the district, recruit students. And neither receive a financial bonus for the recruitment of new students...
What I have not seen before is a pyramid scheme so skillfully created as this appears to be with Epic! The apparent use of public funds to make its for-profit managers more of a profit is a masterful scheme! ...
State Senator Sharp then ends his response to Ray Carter with: I appreciate your diligence to investigative journalism. Thank You!
If Ray Carter is not intentionally lying about traditional public schools having ghost students, then he is woefully ignorant about public school funding. I believe he's not ignorant at all, so that only leaves one option... Follow the money!
When news broke that the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation had filed a search warrant accusing Epic Charter Schools of receiving state funding for "ghost students" who did not attend school through the online provider ..., it understandably drew concerns from all quarters.
But as that investigation proceeds, it has indirectly highlighted a less well-known fact: Many traditional public schools, all across Oklahoma, are receiving funding to educate similar "ghost students" who no longer attend those schools...
Before we address the "big lie" in the second paragraph above, we should determine how a "teacher hating group" acquired teacher personal information. The source was either Shelly Hickman, Epic Assistant Superintendent, who originally acquired the teacher information from Brad Clark, OSDE General Counsel, through an "open records" request several months ago - or the OSDE and Joy Hofmeister... through an "open records" request. Bear in mind that the OSDE was not required to provide the teacher personal information, as stated by Brad Clark, until a judge ordered it - but did so anyway. Epic has provided at least one Oklahoma County District Judge with campaign funds, so a judge may have eventually ordered the release of the personal teacher information, but maybe not. It is also important to note the connections and conflicts of interest in this case - Previous to being employed by the OSDE as Joy Hofmeister's attorney, Brad Clark was an attorney for Bill Hickman's private law group. Bill Hickman is the husband of Shelly Hickman, Epic Assistant Superintendent. And then there's this: Ben Harris, Epic School owner and being investigated by the OSBI for "racketeering", says "I'm in pretty good with Joy" while offering to "rescue" Swink school district from consolidation. Another connection?
The Big Lie:
Ray "Ray Ray" Carter was an editorial columnist for the Daily Oklahoman, before being employed by the OCPA to post negative traditional public school articles, some of which are lies. He is also the husband of Jennifer Carter, Janet Barresi's former Chief of Staff. Oklahoma State Senator Ron Sharp, a public school teacher for 38 years, knows "a thing or two" about public school funding and pyramid schemes in public schools, responded to Ray's article:
Yes Sir! Your article was excellent with contained valid points to consider.
However, a traditional public is attempting to provide a service the public demands the highest of standards. And, rightfully should be anticipated by our State taxpayers. They want a positive return on their investment!
However, there is not a profit motive in the traditional public schools. It is all to provide the best public education possible within the level of funding provided.
The apparent motive for the OSBI investigation into Epic Youth Services LLC appears to be the profit to the for-profit company's owners.
Dual enrollment in Epic and a private school, as reported in the OSBI document, is by willful intent to commit fraud and the subsequent embezzlement of State dollars, if the allegation(s) is proven.
A traditional public school superintendent, nor the teachers in the district, recruit students. And neither receive a financial bonus for the recruitment of new students...
What I have not seen before is a pyramid scheme so skillfully created as this appears to be with Epic! The apparent use of public funds to make its for-profit managers more of a profit is a masterful scheme! ...
State Senator Sharp then ends his response to Ray Carter with: I appreciate your diligence to investigative journalism. Thank You!
If Ray Carter is not intentionally lying about traditional public schools having ghost students, then he is woefully ignorant about public school funding. I believe he's not ignorant at all, so that only leaves one option... Follow the money!
Tuesday, July 23, 2019
More Epic Connections - A Deeper Investigation
We've noted the multitude of connections and potential conflicts of interest between Epic and elected officials, employees, and attorneys. For instance, Brad Clark, General counsel for the OSDE, who provided teacher personal information to Epic, once worked for Epic. The State Superintendent of Schools, Joy Hofmeister, was provided more than $50,000 in campaign donations from Epic officials to see things their way, and even the Governor (Kevin Stitt) was provided more than $10,000. As a matter of fact, Governor Stitt urged Oklahomans to not pass judgement on the alleged racketeers, Harris and Chaney, until all the evidence is in.
As we follow the money, some evidence may be noted above. It is noted by the OSBI that Chaney and Harris split $10,000,000 in profits from their alleged racketeering scheme. The profits came at the expense of our Oklahoma school children in the form of public tax dollars that every Oklahoman pays. While it is unclear just how these personal profits were spent, some went to elected officials' campaigns. The money may be traced from state aid to public schools, to Chaney and Harris, and then to specific elected officials. The tax dollars were in effect - laundered through the Chaney and Harris personal accounts to make the donations appear all perfectly legal. The sad reality is that state aid for students was donated to both Hofmeister and Stitt. A photo of Governor Stitt, David Chaney, and Ben Harris can be seen on Chaney's facebook page, and has been dubbed "The Three Racketeers" by some. FOLLOW THE MONEY...
More potential evidence: We received an anonymous message last week that in part stated "When the investigation first started several years ago, Joy (Hofmeister) specifically asked some of the (SDE) employees if they could withhold information from the OSBI about Epic." While no one can be sure if the statement is true, it is nonetheless very disturbing. Follow the money...
As we follow the money, some evidence may be noted above. It is noted by the OSBI that Chaney and Harris split $10,000,000 in profits from their alleged racketeering scheme. The profits came at the expense of our Oklahoma school children in the form of public tax dollars that every Oklahoman pays. While it is unclear just how these personal profits were spent, some went to elected officials' campaigns. The money may be traced from state aid to public schools, to Chaney and Harris, and then to specific elected officials. The tax dollars were in effect - laundered through the Chaney and Harris personal accounts to make the donations appear all perfectly legal. The sad reality is that state aid for students was donated to both Hofmeister and Stitt. A photo of Governor Stitt, David Chaney, and Ben Harris can be seen on Chaney's facebook page, and has been dubbed "The Three Racketeers" by some. FOLLOW THE MONEY...
More potential evidence: We received an anonymous message last week that in part stated "When the investigation first started several years ago, Joy (Hofmeister) specifically asked some of the (SDE) employees if they could withhold information from the OSBI about Epic." While no one can be sure if the statement is true, it is nonetheless very disturbing. Follow the money...
Friday, July 12, 2019
A State of Oklahoma Question
In addition to the several questions asked of EPIC officials in previous posts, Senator Ron Sharp (representing the State of Oklahoma) has posed another question for EPIC and the Oklahoma State Department of Education (SDE). Before we repeat Senator Sharp's question (and receive no answer, as usual), a look back at the last several months of EPIC and SDE records requests may be helpful.
In March, Senator Sharp requested the SDE provide the financial records of EPIC in regards to his work on Senate committees studying EPIC expenditures and revenue. After three months of hearing nothing from the SDE, Senator Sharp requested an update on progress fulfilling the open records request. The SDE reported that they were working on it, but the State Senator would be charged $850 for the labor involved. It is important to note that state agencies are allowed to charge a fee for providing open records documents to private citizens and companies, and often ranges between 25 and 50 cents per page. The requested documentation of EPIC's financial transactions in this case, was requested by a public official charged with the financial well-being of the State of Oklahoma - a state senator. The SDE official which has typically responded to open records requests is Brad Clark, SDE General Counsel. After three and a half months of delays and stonewalling, it is assumed the SDE provided the requested documentation at the end of June.
Around June 20, 2019, it became apparent to many Oklahoma teachers that some personal information had been disclosed to EPIC, as many if not all of Oklahoma's approximately 40,000 teachers and educators began to receive recruiting brochures in the mail and ads to their personal e-mail accounts. The Frontier reported that an "open records" request had been made to the SDE from EPIC which requested the personal mail and e-mail accounts for all public educators. The EPIC official responsible for requesting the addresses and accounts was the EPIC Communications Director, Shelly Hickman. If EPIC was charged 50 cents for processing and providing the 40,000 records, it may have cost $20,000 for all educator records, although it is still unclear just what the SDE charged EPIC.
What is clear, however, is that the SDE responded to the two open records requests quite differently, treating a state congressman's request with delays and even disdain, but EPIC's request with compliance and secret expediency. The answer to the question of why the responses by the SDE were so diametrically different may be found in the personal connections to the SDE and EPIC. Brad Clark, chief legal counsel for the SDE and Joy Hofmeister, are responsible for deciding what open record requests can be filled and those that cannot. Clark was formerly employed by Bill Hickman's law firm before being hired by Joy Hofmeister and the SDE. Bill Hickman is the husband of Shelly Hickman, EPIC Communications Director (and reponsible for EPIC open records requests). Shelly Hickman formerly worked for the SDE in the same role she now has for EPIC. Is anyone really surprised that the two open records requests were treated differently? Follow the money...
Now, to repeat State Senator Ron Sharp's question: Why did the SDE provide allocations to EPIC Blended Charter School for grade levels the school has publicly acknowledged did not exist for the school years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019? The revelation that EPIC Blended School received public funding for students not enrolled, sounds familiar with the OSBI investigation into EPIC Virtual Charter Schools for receiving public funding for students enrolled in private schools and EPIC. Again, follow the money.. The SDE has privately acknowledged that it did provide the funding for imaginary grade levels and students enrolled in both private schools and EPIC, but seems to blame the potential misappropriation of public funds on the lowly regional accreditation officer (RAO) who approved the student count (ADM). If that is Joy Hofmeister and Brad Clark's defense of possible misappropriation of public funds, then the RAO should be fired. It should not absolve the SDE leadership of responsibility though.
We have another question for Shelly Hickman, Communications Director for EPIC: With the knowledge that EPIC Blended Charter received funding for non-existent grade levels and subsequent student ADM, why didn't EPIC return the misappropriated funds? We have no doubt this question will not be answered along with Senator Sharp's question, until someone more important than a public educator or state senator asks. Follow the money...
An article in the Tulsa World raised some more questions for EPIC and the SDE - Tulsa World reporter Andrea Eger asked the SDE : (Paraphrased) What are the state requirements for (EPIC) Blended Learning Center student attendance? Brad Clark, SDE General Counsel, responded that BLC is subject to the same attendance requirements that brick and mortar (traditional) schools are. Emily Long of Price Lang Consulting (EPIC's outsourced consulting firm) responded to Brad Clark's answer by saying "that statement is wrong". OK, I have a question: Who is lying? the SDE? or EPIC? Follow the money...
SDE Accreditation Officers (RAO) are those employees which routinely monitor public school reports for accuracy and mistakes. The reports audited include the grade level and student membership for every public school in the state. If only one student has been coded incorrectly by a school - the RAO always catches the mistake and corrects it, so that no school receives more funding than it should or less. All public schools receive the exact amount of funding through the formula based on the Average Daily Membership (ADM) for each. Schools do not receive state or SDE appropriated funding until the RAOs audit membership reports... until now. Evidently EPIC has received maybe millions of dollars for students they don't have. If school RAO's catch even the slightest miscalculation in school membership reports, how did this EPIC mistake get by the SDE? Is it misappropriation by the SDE... and complicity by EPIC? or intentional misleading reports by EPIC and complicity by the SDE? Either way, crimes could have been committed. Follow the money..
Update July 17, 2019: ... and then there's this... What other entities could be implicated?
Update July 18, 2019: Joy Hofmeister, State Superintendent, stated that the OSBI investigation and subsequent potential indictment of racketeers and embezzlers is "very serious and disturbing". She also stated that the SDE stands ready to cooperate fully in the OSBI investigation into embezzlement and racketeering. To absolve the SDE of any responsibility of the racketeering or embezzlement charges, it should prove that it had no prior knowledge of the shenanigans of the owners, Chaney and Harris. Several educators and a State Senator believe the SDE had prior knowledge of these crimes, but failed to acknowledge or report to law enforcement. The SDE 'standing ready to fully cooperate with the OSBI' in the matter may mean that someone may be thrown under the school bus...
Update July 19,2019: Racketeering is only one of the crimes being investigated by the OSBI during its EPIC sweep. "A racket, according to the current common and most general definition, is an organized criminal act in which the criminal act is some form of substantial business, or a way to earn illegal money either regularly, or briefly but repeatedly... However, originally and often still specifically, a 'racket' referred to a criminal act in which the perpetrator (perp) or perps fraudulently offer a service to solve a nonexistent problem... Conducting a racket is racketeering. Particularly, the potential problem may be caused by the same party (of racketeers) that offers to solve it, but the fact may be concealed, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage for this party." (wikipedia). "Profiteering is a pejorative term for the act of making a profit by methods considered unethical" and goes hand-in-hand with racketeering.
We may apply EPIC's business model for public education to the racketeering and profiteering definitions to see if the glove truly fits, and if it does, you must not acquit. In the EPIC case, the nonexistent problem to be solved is the "poor" public education being forced on students of traditional public schools. The service being offered to solve the nonexistent problem is the EPIC model of schoolin'. EPIC has engendered continual patronage with the running of its nonstop TV, Radio, and social media ads. The perps in the EPIC case may be Chaney and Harris, EPIC owners, but may also be several others receiving unethical profits. Those "others" could be the several elected officials who've received almost $200,000 in campaign donations from EPIC, and would include the Oklahoma State Superintendent of Schools, the Oklahoma Attorney General, an Oklahoma County district judge, many Oklahoma State Representatives and Senators, and even the Governor. While it is doubtful that all involved in the EPIC case will be indicted on embezzlement or racketeering, I'd still be very worried if I unethically profited at the expense of Oklahoma taxpayers...
Update July 21, 2019: Continued...
In March, Senator Sharp requested the SDE provide the financial records of EPIC in regards to his work on Senate committees studying EPIC expenditures and revenue. After three months of hearing nothing from the SDE, Senator Sharp requested an update on progress fulfilling the open records request. The SDE reported that they were working on it, but the State Senator would be charged $850 for the labor involved. It is important to note that state agencies are allowed to charge a fee for providing open records documents to private citizens and companies, and often ranges between 25 and 50 cents per page. The requested documentation of EPIC's financial transactions in this case, was requested by a public official charged with the financial well-being of the State of Oklahoma - a state senator. The SDE official which has typically responded to open records requests is Brad Clark, SDE General Counsel. After three and a half months of delays and stonewalling, it is assumed the SDE provided the requested documentation at the end of June.
Around June 20, 2019, it became apparent to many Oklahoma teachers that some personal information had been disclosed to EPIC, as many if not all of Oklahoma's approximately 40,000 teachers and educators began to receive recruiting brochures in the mail and ads to their personal e-mail accounts. The Frontier reported that an "open records" request had been made to the SDE from EPIC which requested the personal mail and e-mail accounts for all public educators. The EPIC official responsible for requesting the addresses and accounts was the EPIC Communications Director, Shelly Hickman. If EPIC was charged 50 cents for processing and providing the 40,000 records, it may have cost $20,000 for all educator records, although it is still unclear just what the SDE charged EPIC.
What is clear, however, is that the SDE responded to the two open records requests quite differently, treating a state congressman's request with delays and even disdain, but EPIC's request with compliance and secret expediency. The answer to the question of why the responses by the SDE were so diametrically different may be found in the personal connections to the SDE and EPIC. Brad Clark, chief legal counsel for the SDE and Joy Hofmeister, are responsible for deciding what open record requests can be filled and those that cannot. Clark was formerly employed by Bill Hickman's law firm before being hired by Joy Hofmeister and the SDE. Bill Hickman is the husband of Shelly Hickman, EPIC Communications Director (and reponsible for EPIC open records requests). Shelly Hickman formerly worked for the SDE in the same role she now has for EPIC. Is anyone really surprised that the two open records requests were treated differently? Follow the money...
Now, to repeat State Senator Ron Sharp's question: Why did the SDE provide allocations to EPIC Blended Charter School for grade levels the school has publicly acknowledged did not exist for the school years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019? The revelation that EPIC Blended School received public funding for students not enrolled, sounds familiar with the OSBI investigation into EPIC Virtual Charter Schools for receiving public funding for students enrolled in private schools and EPIC. Again, follow the money.. The SDE has privately acknowledged that it did provide the funding for imaginary grade levels and students enrolled in both private schools and EPIC, but seems to blame the potential misappropriation of public funds on the lowly regional accreditation officer (RAO) who approved the student count (ADM). If that is Joy Hofmeister and Brad Clark's defense of possible misappropriation of public funds, then the RAO should be fired. It should not absolve the SDE leadership of responsibility though.
We have another question for Shelly Hickman, Communications Director for EPIC: With the knowledge that EPIC Blended Charter received funding for non-existent grade levels and subsequent student ADM, why didn't EPIC return the misappropriated funds? We have no doubt this question will not be answered along with Senator Sharp's question, until someone more important than a public educator or state senator asks. Follow the money...
An article in the Tulsa World raised some more questions for EPIC and the SDE - Tulsa World reporter Andrea Eger asked the SDE : (Paraphrased) What are the state requirements for (EPIC) Blended Learning Center student attendance? Brad Clark, SDE General Counsel, responded that BLC is subject to the same attendance requirements that brick and mortar (traditional) schools are. Emily Long of Price Lang Consulting (EPIC's outsourced consulting firm) responded to Brad Clark's answer by saying "that statement is wrong". OK, I have a question: Who is lying? the SDE? or EPIC? Follow the money...
SDE Accreditation Officers (RAO) are those employees which routinely monitor public school reports for accuracy and mistakes. The reports audited include the grade level and student membership for every public school in the state. If only one student has been coded incorrectly by a school - the RAO always catches the mistake and corrects it, so that no school receives more funding than it should or less. All public schools receive the exact amount of funding through the formula based on the Average Daily Membership (ADM) for each. Schools do not receive state or SDE appropriated funding until the RAOs audit membership reports... until now. Evidently EPIC has received maybe millions of dollars for students they don't have. If school RAO's catch even the slightest miscalculation in school membership reports, how did this EPIC mistake get by the SDE? Is it misappropriation by the SDE... and complicity by EPIC? or intentional misleading reports by EPIC and complicity by the SDE? Either way, crimes could have been committed. Follow the money..
Update July 17, 2019: ... and then there's this... What other entities could be implicated?
Update July 18, 2019: Joy Hofmeister, State Superintendent, stated that the OSBI investigation and subsequent potential indictment of racketeers and embezzlers is "very serious and disturbing". She also stated that the SDE stands ready to cooperate fully in the OSBI investigation into embezzlement and racketeering. To absolve the SDE of any responsibility of the racketeering or embezzlement charges, it should prove that it had no prior knowledge of the shenanigans of the owners, Chaney and Harris. Several educators and a State Senator believe the SDE had prior knowledge of these crimes, but failed to acknowledge or report to law enforcement. The SDE 'standing ready to fully cooperate with the OSBI' in the matter may mean that someone may be thrown under the school bus...
Update July 19,2019: Racketeering is only one of the crimes being investigated by the OSBI during its EPIC sweep. "A racket, according to the current common and most general definition, is an organized criminal act in which the criminal act is some form of substantial business, or a way to earn illegal money either regularly, or briefly but repeatedly... However, originally and often still specifically, a 'racket' referred to a criminal act in which the perpetrator (perp) or perps fraudulently offer a service to solve a nonexistent problem... Conducting a racket is racketeering. Particularly, the potential problem may be caused by the same party (of racketeers) that offers to solve it, but the fact may be concealed, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage for this party." (wikipedia). "Profiteering is a pejorative term for the act of making a profit by methods considered unethical" and goes hand-in-hand with racketeering.
We may apply EPIC's business model for public education to the racketeering and profiteering definitions to see if the glove truly fits, and if it does, you must not acquit. In the EPIC case, the nonexistent problem to be solved is the "poor" public education being forced on students of traditional public schools. The service being offered to solve the nonexistent problem is the EPIC model of schoolin'. EPIC has engendered continual patronage with the running of its nonstop TV, Radio, and social media ads. The perps in the EPIC case may be Chaney and Harris, EPIC owners, but may also be several others receiving unethical profits. Those "others" could be the several elected officials who've received almost $200,000 in campaign donations from EPIC, and would include the Oklahoma State Superintendent of Schools, the Oklahoma Attorney General, an Oklahoma County district judge, many Oklahoma State Representatives and Senators, and even the Governor. While it is doubtful that all involved in the EPIC case will be indicted on embezzlement or racketeering, I'd still be very worried if I unethically profited at the expense of Oklahoma taxpayers...
Update July 21, 2019: Continued...
Friday, June 28, 2019
Rule 14 Effectiveness Analysis for Baseball
There are 472 OSSAA member schools which participate in spring baseball. Those schools which may restrict enrollment (RE) and/or provide student financial assistance (FA) comprise 22 schools (4.7%), while those schools which cannot restrict enrollment or provide financial assistance comprise 450 schools (95.3%). In 2011, one year before Rule 14 became effective, 4 RE/FA schools experienced success (final eight in playoff competition), or 8.3%. This success ratio for RE/FA schools was 77% higher than its membership ratio. Forty-four (44) non-RE/FA schools, or 91.7%, experienced "success" on the OSSAA success meter. The success ratio for non-RE/FA schools at 91.7% was 3.8% lower than its membership ratio. An analysis for several other sports can be read here.
Eight years after implementation of the competitive equity Rule 14 in 2019, the success and participation ratios for RE/FA and non-RE/FA schools were identical to 2011. Based on this competitive equity effectiveness study, Rule 14 has been ineffective for establishing a level playing field.
Once again, it remains unknown as to the data and analysis the OSSAA committee utilized in determining that Rule 14 has been effective for baseball. I guess we may analyze its analysis for validity and reliability on August 7 at the OSSAA public meeting...
Eight years after implementation of the competitive equity Rule 14 in 2019, the success and participation ratios for RE/FA and non-RE/FA schools were identical to 2011. Based on this competitive equity effectiveness study, Rule 14 has been ineffective for establishing a level playing field.
Once again, it remains unknown as to the data and analysis the OSSAA committee utilized in determining that Rule 14 has been effective for baseball. I guess we may analyze its analysis for validity and reliability on August 7 at the OSSAA public meeting...
Friday, June 21, 2019
Competitive Equity for Football
If we study a
single high school sport – football, for the 2011 season (prior to
implementation of the rule) and the 2017 season (6 years into the rule), we may
analyze the results of “equalizing” the chances of success for all member
schools. We will study the play-off success in 2011 and 2017 for the 23 member
schools which may provide student financial assistance and select or limit
students – and compare to 23 randomly selected member schools which may not
provide student financial assistance or select and limit students. We will
assign a point value for advancing to the top eight in each classification,
with additional points assigned for advancing each step. For instance, a member
school will receive one point for participating in football, two points for
advancing to the top eight, four points for top four, six points for top two,
and eight points for “State Champion”. Using this methodology, we may compare
“success” for those member schools which may provide financial assistance and
select or limit students to those member schools which may not – and ultimately
determine if the “bump-up” rule has been effective in “leveling the playing
field”.
TABLE A (“Success” points for 23 member schools which offer
SFA and Select/Limit – 2011)
1)
2
6) 6 11) 1 16) 1 21) 1
2)
6
7) 1 12) 2 17) 1 22) 1
3)
2
8) 4 13) 1 18) 1 23) 1
4)
6
9) 1 14) 1 19) 1 Total Success – 55 points
5)
8
10) 4 15) 2 20) 1 Average success – 2.39 points
TABLE B (“Success” points for 23 randomly selected member
schools which may not offer SFA)
1)
2
6) 1 11) 1
16) 2 21) 4
2)
1
7) 1 12) 1
17) 2 22) 1
3)
6
8) 1 13) 2 18) 2 23) 2
4)
1
9) 1 14) 2 19) 1 Total Success – 39 points
5)
1
10) 1 15) 1 20) 2 Average success – 1.70
TABLE C (“Success” points for 23 members which offer SFA and
Select/Limit – 2017)
1)
6
6) 2* 11) 6 16) 2 21) 4*
2)
6
7) 2* 12) 2
17) 6 22) 4
3)
2
8) 6 13) 1*
18) 1* 23) 4
4)
8
9) 2 14) 6 19) 2* Total Success – 86 points
5)
2
10) 4 15) 4 20) 4 Average success – 3.74
TABLE D (“Success” points for 23 random members which may not
offer SFA)
1)
2
6) 1 11) 1 16) 1 21) 1
2)
1
7) 6 12) 2 17) 1 22) 1
3)
2
8) 1 13) 1 18) 1 23) 1
4)
1
9) 1 14) 1 19) 1 Total Success – 32 points
5)
1
10) 2 15) 1 20) 1 Average success – 1.39
ANALYSIS OF “SUCCESS” TABLES
For the 2011
Oklahoma high school football season - Table A indicates a “success” rate of 55
points for those member schools which may offer student financial assistance
and select/limit student enrollment. Table B (those OSSAA member schools which
may not offer student financial assistance or cannot select/limit student
enrollment) for the 2011 season indicates a “success” rate of 39 points. In
2011, one year before implementation of the “bump-up” rule – the success
enjoyed by those schools which provide scholarships, etc. was significantly
higher than those schools which do not.
For the 2017
Oklahoma high school football season (5 years after implementation of the
“bump-up” rule for leveling the playing field), Table C indicates a success
rate of 86 points for those schools which provide SFA …, a 31 point increase for “success”. Table D
indicates a success rate of 32 points for non-scholarship member schools, a
drop of 7 points from 2011.
This analysis of
implementation of the OSSAA “bump-up” rule indicates that it has not been
effective for leveling the playing field for all OSSAA member schools. As a
matter of fact, the OSSAA rule may have had just the opposite effect for which
it was intended. Implementation of the rule in 2012 may have provided the
motivation for member schools to take advantage of the ability to provide SFA
and select/limit student admissions. Evidence indicates that one member school
which provides SFA, etc. experienced a success drop from “6 points” in 2011 to
“1 point” in 2017 (after bumping up one enrollment based class level). The
response of the school is to actually drop two class levels (from class-4A to
class 2A) in order to improve its “success rate”. The ability to select/limit
student enrollment has allowed this particular member school a systemic
advantage for increasing its success rate.
CORR. EFFECTS OF RULE 14 (CHANCES OF SUCCESS FOR THOSE
SCHOOLS WHICH PROVIDE SFA AND SA)
Methodology: A Pearson Correlation Coefficient was
calculated for 23 public and private schools which provide student financial
assistance to students and/or selectively admit students. The analysis was
provided for the sport of football only, for the 2011 (the last year before
implementation of Rule 14) and 2017 (6 years into Rule 14) seasons. The Pearson
correlation coefficient (r) obtains a value of between -1 and +1. A negative
‘r’ means that the effects of a specific action or factor(s) in a relationship
are negatively correlated, while a positive ‘r’ means that the effects of
actions or factors are positively correlated. The intent of Rule 14 for OSSAA
member schools was to effectively “level the playing field” for private schools
as well as public schools. By utilizing the Pearson Coefficient Correlation, a
general “success” rate can be determined for the 23 schools for the 2011 season
and be correlated for the same 23 schools for the 2017 season. An ‘r’ = 0 means
that Rule 14 has had no significant effect on “leveling the playing field” for
private schools and public schools in the OSSAA. A negative ‘r’ means that Rule
14 has had the intended effect for member schools – the playing field has been
leveled. In other words, the success rate for those schools which provide
student financial assistance and/or selectively admit students – significantly
decreased from the 2011 h.s. football season to the 2017 season (6 years after
implementation). A positive ‘r’ means that the effects of implementing Rule 14
resulted in the opposite. In other words, the implementation of Rule 14 did not
“level the playing field” in football – and could have even exacerbated the
problem.
Results: When the success rate for those public and private
schools which provide SFA and/or SA was analyzed for the 2011 season and 2017
season, an ‘r’ = .23 was obtained. A positive .23 means that the success rate
for “private” schools increased after implementation of Rule 14. Using Cohen’s
(1988) Guidelines for Correlation Coefficients – the r=.23 means that public
and private schools providing SFA and/or SA, are positively correlated to
“success”. The closer the ‘r’ value is to ‘0’ means there is little or no
correlation to the success of these schools based on the determining factors.
Cohen’s Guidelines reflect that a definite correlation exists when the ‘r’
value is greater than .10 or (-.10). The goal of any classification plan should
be an ‘r’ = 0 to .10. Any value greater would necessarily constitute unfair
competition.
The justification for the OSSAA to start over with a new classification system can be read here.
We will now analyze basketball using the same success model and methodology as football... in our next article/blog:
The justification for the OSSAA to start over with a new classification system can be read here.
We will now analyze basketball using the same success model and methodology as football... in our next article/blog:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)