Walters wins Oklahoma's fight over social studies standards, at the expense of public transparency
Members of the Oklahoma State Board of Education listen as member Ryan Deatherage speaks during a meeting April 24 at the Oklahoma State Department of Education in Oklahoma City. (Photo by Nuria Martinez-Keel/Oklahoma Voice)
Ryan Walters made a series of big gambles that paid off for him in spades.
Somehow over the course of the past few weeks, Oklahoma's state superintendent bet that he could outplay his constituents, outwit Gov. Kevin Stitt's three new education board appointees, and outlast the Republican-led Legislature that has long been afraid to stand up to him.
It all culminated last week in Walters getting exactly what he wanted: a set of controversial social studies standards, quietly altered at the last minute, limping their way across the finish line. They took effect by default with no public legislative vote.
If it sounds like a lame ending to the reality TV program 'Survivor,' you'd be spot on. Walters walked away with the $1 million prize while his constituents, who wanted to exercise their right to engage in the government process, were effectively eliminated after the first round.
Backdoor maneuvering and unsympathetic shoulder-shrugging by Republicans meant the public couldn't play their immunity idol to protect themselves from round-upon-round of incompetence. They watched as the majority of their supposed allies — the Republicans they elected — turned their backs on them and didn't have the spine to protect them.
While it culminated in a big win for Walters, who proved he has the chops to outplay, outwit, outlast us all, this isn't a game. Public transparency and our children are the biggest losers of this latest debacle.
Over the course of a month, we all watched from the sidelines as the public feedback was ignored and standards that weren't properly vetted were ramrodded through the legislative process. It will be six years before they're due to be redrafted again.
I found myself aggravated by all the legislative shoulder-shrugging.
The Legislature's inaction sent a clear signal that the majority of Oklahoma lawmakers were OK with the fact that Walters didn't share the revised version of standards publicly online until weeks after they were voted on by a state governing board.
It signaled that they didn't care that Walters insisted that what is contained in the standards, which belong to us all, is his decision alone.
It indicated that they ignored revelations that the education governing board members hadn't read the revised standards before voting on them, and that lawmakers felt it acceptable that Walters only shared the final draft with his oversight board less than a day before the scheduled vote. They didn't care about accusations from the board that Walters didn't tell them that he made dozens of secret changes outside public scrutiny.
And it showed that they were willing to ignore calls from within their own party and their constituents to return them to the board for further review.
So, here's a gold star for every Republican who managed to set the public transparency bar to a new low.
The fact that Walters felt the need to make changes in secret coupled with the fact that many Republican legislators only felt comfortable discussing them behind closed doors raises concerns.
In a state that is struggling to set its students up for academic success, why are we not having these discussions publicly and requiring votes be taken?
The social studies standards process was a complete mess, and lawmakers should be doing some soul-searching about how to make the adoption of academic standards more transparent moving forward.
Because these should not be drafted or debated in dark, smoke-filled rooms. We should welcome and require public discussion on them. Feedback and debate is what is going to make our society and schools stronger.
It's a bit of a headscratcher that we don't have a law requiring that any revisions of academic standards be posted publicly online 72 business hours ahead of a public vote. I also don't understand why we wouldn't want any changes to be clearly denoted.
Both things seem like simple solutions to solve many of the transparency issues that plagued this process.
Because public engagement and transparency are a cornerstone of good governing. Anything else breeds suspicion and is bad for democracy.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
14 minutes ago
In their own words: Trump, Newsom trade insults and barbs over National Guard in Los Angeles
The swiftly evolving situation in the Los Angeles area over protests surrounding immigration enforcement actions has also cued up a public spat between President Donald Trump and Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California governor who has been one of the Republican president's most vocal Democratic critics. After Trump on Sunday called up 2,000 National Guard troops to respond, Newsom said he would sue the administration, a promise on which the state followed through a day later. Trump cited a legal provision that allows him to mobilize federal service members when there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States." The president also agreed with one of his top advisers that maybe the governor should be arrested. Here's a look at back-and-forth between Trump and Newsom in their own words: 'You have violent people, and we're not gonna let them get away with it.' — Trump, Sunday, in remarks to reporters in Morristown, New Jersey. ___ Newsom's ire has been elevated over Trump's decision to, without his support, call up the California National Guard for deployment into his state. In a letter Sunday, Newsom called on Trump to rescind the Guard deployment, calling it a 'serious breach of state sovereignty.' The governor, who was in Los Angeles meeting with local law enforcement and other officials, also told protesters they were playing into Trump's plans and would face arrest for violence or property destruction. 'Trump wants chaos and he's instigated violence,' he said. 'Stay peaceful. Stay focused. Don't give him the excuse he's looking for.' In an interview with MSNBC, Newsom said Sunday he had spoken with Trump 'late Friday night,' after the protests had begun, but said deploying the National Guard 'never came up.' "We talked for almost 20 minutes, and he — barely, this issue never came up. I mean, I kept trying to talk about LA, he wanted to talk about all these other issues," Newsom said. 'We had a very decent conversation.' 'He never once brought up the National Guard,' Newsom said of Trump, calling him 'a stone-cold liar.' Saying, 'I did call him the other night,' Trump told reporters Sunday that he told Newsom in that call: ''Look you've got to take care of this. Otherwise I'm sending in the troops.' ... That's what we did.' On Monday, Trump posted on social media that Los Angeles would have been 'completely obliterated' without his intervention and referred to Newsom as 'Newscum,' a pejorative moniker he has used to refer to the governor. 'We are suing Donald Trump. This is a manufactured crisis. He is creating fear and terror to take over a state militia and violate the U.S. constitution.' — Newsom, Monday, X post. ___ As Newsom promised, California officials sued the Trump administration on Monday, with the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, arguing that the deployment of troops 'trampled' on the state's sovereignty and pushing for a restraining order. The initial deployment of 300 National Guard troops was expected to quickly expand to the full 2,000 that were authorized by Trump. Late Monday, Trump authorized an additional 2,000 National Guard troops. Ahead of that move, Newsom accused the president of inflaming tensions, breaching state sovereignty and wasting resources, while warning protesters not to 'take Trump's bait.' Teasing the suit, Newsom told MSNBC that he saw the deployment as 'an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act.' Asked Monday about the lawsuit, Trump said it was 'interesting' and argued 'that place would be burning down' without the federal government's intervention. 'I'm very happy I got involved," Trump added. "I think Gavin in his own way is very happy I got involved.' 'I think it's great. Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing." — Trump, Monday, in remarks to reporters. ___ Tom Homan, the Trump administration's border czar, previously warned that anyone, including public officials, would be arrested if they obstructed federal immigration enforcement. Newsom's initial response to Homan, during the MSNBC interview and in subsequent posts on his own social media: 'Come and get me, tough guy.' On Monday Trump seemed to agree with his border chief, telling reporters, 'I would do it if I were Tom.' 'I think it's great. Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing,' Trump added. "He's done a terrible job. Look — I like Gavin, he's a nice guy, but he's grossly incompetent, everybody knows." Homan later said there was 'no discussion' about actually arresting Newsom, but reiterated that 'no one's above the law.' wrote Monday on X that they represented 'a day I hoped I would never see in America' and said Trump's call for his arrest marked 'an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.'
31 minutes ago
Minnesota budget deal cuts health care for adults who entered the US illegally
ST. PAUL, Minn. -- Adults living in the U.S. illegally will be excluded from a state-run health care program under an overall budget deal that the closely divided Minnesota Legislature convened to pass in a special session Monday. Repealing a 2023 state law that made those immigrants eligible for the MinnesotaCare program for the working poor was a priority for Republicans in the negotiations that produced the budget agreement. The Legislature is split 101-100, with the House tied and Democrats holding just a one-seat majority in the Senate, and the health care compromise was a bitter pill for Democrats to accept. The change is expected to affect about 17,000 residents. After an emotional near four-hour debate, the House aroved the bill 68-65. Under the agreement, the top House Democratic leader, Melissa Hortman, of Brooklyn Park, was the only member of her caucus to vote yes. The bill then went to the Senate, where it passed 37-30. Democratic Majority Leader Erin Murphy, of St. Paul, called it 'a wound on the soul of Minnesota,' but kept her promise to vote yes as part of the deal, calling it "among the most painful votes I've ever taken." Democratic Gov. Tim Walz, who insisted on maintaining eligibility for children who aren't in the country legally, has promised to sign the legislation, and all 13 other bills scheduled for action in the special session, to complete a $66 billion, two-year budget that will take effect July 1. 'This is 100% about the GOP campaign against immigrants,' said House Democratic Floor Leader Jamie Long, of Minneapolis, who voted no. 'From Trump's renewed travel ban announced this week, to his effort to expel those with protected status, to harassing students here to study, to disproportionate military and law enforcement responses that we've seen from Minneapolis to L.A., this all comes back to attacking immigrants and the name of dividing us.' But GOP Rep. Jeff Backer, of Browns Valley, the lead author of the bill, said taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize health care for people who aren't in the country legally. Backer said California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has proposed freezing enrollment for immigrants without legal status in a similar state-funded program and that Illinois' Democratic governor, JB Pritzker, has proposed cutting a similar program. He said residents can still buy health insurance on the private market regardless of their immigration status. 'This is about being fiscally responsible,' Backer said. Enrollment by people who entered the country illegally in MinnesotaCare has run triple the initial projections, which Republicans said could have pushed the costs over $600 million over the next four years. Critics said the change won't save any money because those affected will forego preventive care and need much more expensive care later. 'People don't suddenly stop getting sick when they don't have insurance, but they do put off seeking care until a condition gets bad enough to require a visit to the emergency room, increasing overall health care costs for everyone,' Bernie Burnham, president of the Minnesota AFL-CIO, told reporters at a news conference organized by the critics. Walz and legislative leaders agreed on the broad framework for the budget over four weeks ago, contrasting the bipartisan cooperation that produced it with the deep divisions at the federal level in Washington. But with the tie in the House and the razor-thin Senate Democratic majority, few major policy initiatives got off the ground before the regular session ended May 19. Leaders announced Friday that the details were settled and that they had enough votes to pass everything in the budget package.
an hour ago
New York lawmakers approve bill that would allow medically assisted suicide for the terminally ill
ALBANY, N.Y. -- Terminally ill New Yorkers would have the legal ability to end their own lives with pharmaceutical drugs under a bill passed Monday in the state Legislature. The proposal, which now moves to the governor's office, would allow a person with an incurable illness to be prescribed life-ending drugs if he or she requests the medication and gets approval from two physicians. A spokesperson for New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said she would review the legislation. The New York Senate gave final approval to the bill Monday night after hours of debate during which supporters said it would let terminally ill people die on their own terms. 'It's not about hastening death, but ending suffering,' said state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, a Democrat who sponsored the proposal. Opponents have argued the state should instead improve end-of-life medical care or have objected on religious grounds. 'We should not be in the business of state-authorized suicide,' said state Sen. George Borrello, a Republican. The state Assembly passed the measure in late April. The proposal requires that a terminally ill person who is expected to die within six month make a written request for the drugs. Two witnesses would have sign the request to ensure that the patient is not being coerced. The request would then have to be approved by the person's attending physician as well as a consulting physician. The legislation was first introduced in 2016, Hoylman-Sigal said, though it has stalled year after year in the New York statehouse. Dennis Poust, executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, which has opposed the measure, said 'This is a dark day for New York State." Eleven other states and Washington, D.C., have laws allowing medically assisted suicide, according to Compassion & Choices, an advocacy organization that backs the policy. Corinne Carey, the group's local campaign director, said lawmakers had 'recognized how important it is to give terminally ill New Yorkers the autonomy they deserve over their own end-of-life experiences.' 'The option of medical aid in dying provides comfort, allowing those who are dying to live their time more fully and peacefully until the end,' said Carey.
