Teachers to be required to take U.S. Naturalization test
OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) — The Oklahoma Board of Education recently approved a rule requiring teachers to take a test based on the U.S. Naturalization test, the same test used to become U.S. citizens.
'All of our teachers will be required to take the U.S. Naturalization test to ensure that they understand the basics of America, American history, American government and civics,' said State Superintendent Ryan Walters.
Superintendents react to proposed counting of students' citizenship
The rule would mean, in addition to getting a teaching certification, teachers would also have to take the U.S. Citizenship test.
'And this requirement will help Oklahoma lead the way to ensure in every classroom that understanding, is being given,' said Superintendent Walters.
However, some believe this isn't the best idea.
'There have been so many efforts in the recent past from the legislature to do things like decrease the number of assessments we have to take to become educators,' said Cari Elledge, the elected President of Oklahoma Education Association.
The elected president of the Oklahoma Education Association also said this new rule wouldn't be in Oklahoma's best interest when it comes to getting more teachers to apply for jobs and staying in them.
'This just kind of adds some redundancy to it. And it's one more thing on the plate when they've been trying to take things off the plate of educators,' said Elledge.
OSDE passes rule to require citizenship status of families
The rule would mean all teachers would take the test, which the OEA said might be easier for those who already teach that content.
'A pre-k teacher, a PE teacher, there are so many different examples of how that would just be an extra hoop to jump through,' said Elledge.
The OEA said they will continue to push for ways to help make things more efficient for educators in any way they can.
The rules aren't in effect yet. First, they will go through the legislature then head to the governor's desk.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
UK Timeline for US Deal Is Too Ambitious, Ex-Trade Adviser Says
(Bloomberg) -- Supply Lines is a daily newsletter that tracks global trade. Sign up here. Next Stop: Rancho Cucamonga! Where Public Transit Systems Are Bouncing Back Around the World ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract US Housing Agency Vulnerable to Fraud After DOGE Cuts, Documents Warn Trump Said He Fired the National Portrait Gallery Director. She's Still There. Prime Minister Keir Starmer would need President Donald Trump to be 'extraordinarily generous' to meet his ambition of finalizing the UK-US tariff deal in two weeks, according to Britain's former top trade negotiator. Crawford Falconer, who led British trade negotiations until late last year, cast doubts on the UK government's efforts to settle remaining issues within a fortnight. While Starmer and Trump announced the so-called Economic Prosperity Deal to great fanfare in early May, numerous details have yet to be finalized. 'My assumption is that they're expecting the US to be extraordinarily generous and understanding toward them,' Falconer told Bloomberg News. 'Because otherwise I think it would take longer than two weeks.' That assessment will come as a blow to Starmer as he tries to seize on the UK's status as the first country to agree to a trade deal with Trump this year. On Tuesday, the White House ramped up the pressure, giving the UK five weeks to resolve outstanding issues or risk a doubling of US tariffs on British steel and aluminum imports to 50%. Trump's tariffs are already weighing on the UK's beleaguered steel industry, with some manufacturers saying American orders have dried up. Starmer dismissed concerns in Parliament on Wednesday, telling lawmakers he expected a resolution within a 'couple of weeks.' 'The deal we agreed is a good deal for UK steel producers,' the government said in a statement on Friday. 'We will continue to work with the US Commerce Department to implement our agreement as soon as possible so all UK steel producers can start to feel the full benefit.' Key to the deal is Trump's promise to remove all tariffs on British steel exports to the US. Although Trump spared the UK the 50% rate imposed on steel from the rest of the world, he reserved the option to apply it if negotiations haven't concluded by July 9. Remaining hurdles include the Chinese ownership of British Steel, the struggling producer the UK government took over in April. There's also a question about whether the US will require British steel to have been melted and poured in the country. Tata Steel UK can no longer fulfill that provision. It closed down its last blast furnace in 2024 and a new electric arc furnace isn't yet up and running, so the company has been importing steel substrate from abroad. In a statement Friday, Tata Steel UK Chief Executive Officer Rajesh Nair said his company would need to import steel substrate until late 2027. 'It is therefore critical for our business that 'melted and poured in the UK' is not a requirement to access the steel quotas in any future trade deal,' Nair said. British Steel is facing a different set of problems. While the UK government took control of its plants earlier this year to prevent them closing, the company is still legally owned by China's Jingye Group. The general terms of the UK-US deal say the UK must meet 'US requirements' on the 'nature of ownership of relevant production facilities.' That is widely understood to mean that Trump would not grant preferential tariff rates to a company with connections to a strategic rival such as China. 'They will want clarity on what that means,' Falconer said. 'It's difficult for me to believe that the US will be confident that it would give the green light to Jingye, if it is uncertain about what the actual commercial arrangements are for British Steel going forward.' Finding a buyer for the loss-making manufacturer in the near-term seems unlikely. Meanwhile, fully nationalizing British Steel could bring its own problems, since the US generally tries to avoid giving state-owned entities preferential access to its market. Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again The SEC Pinned Its Hack on a Few Hapless Day Traders. The Full Story Is Far More Troubling Is Elon Musk's Political Capital Spent? What Does Musk-Trump Split Mean for a 'Big, Beautiful Bill'? Cuts to US Aid Imperil the World's Largest HIV Treatment Program ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
Wall Street Journal slams Vance's foreign student stance as ‘false choice'
The Wall Street Journal's editorial board on Friday slammed recent comments by Vice President Vance on foreign students as a 'false choice' amid tensions between the Trump administration and higher education institutions. In an interview on Newsmax's 'Greg Kelly Reports' late last month, Vance said that an 'idea that American citizens don't have the talent to do great things, that you have to import a foreign class of servants and professors to do these things, I just reject that.' The Journal noted Vance's comments in a Friday opinion piece, alongside other comments in which he said 'we invest in our own people' and that he believes 'that's actually an opportunity for American citizens to really flourish' when it comes to international student visa restrictions. 'This is a classic false choice. Of course the U.S. has talent and should invest in it. But welcoming foreign students doesn't hinder Americans,' the editorial board said in their piece. 'The cold, hard numbers show that too few Americans are pursuing STEM fields to meet the future needs of business and government. Of all U.S. bachelor's degrees, biology and engineering fields make up about 13%,' they added. Earlier this week, limits were placed on foreign student visas at Harvard University by President Trump. 'Admission into the United States to attend, conduct research, or teach at our Nation's institutions of higher education is a privilege granted by our Government, not a guarantee,' Trump said in a Wednesday proclamation restricting the visas. In recent months, the Trump administration has targeted multiple higher education institutions over alleged inaction on campus antisemitism and policies around transgender athletes. 'Does the Trump Administration want to stop illegal immigration, or nearly all legal immigration, including foreign students? The evidence is growing that it wants the latter, which will sharply reduce the human capital the U.S. needs to prosper,' the Journal editorial board wrote. The Hill has reached out to Vance's office for comment.
Atlantic
26 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Musk and Trump Still Agree on One Thing
Far be it from me to judge anyone enjoying the feud between Donald Trump and his benefactor Elon Musk over Trump's signature legislation, the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act. But in the conflict between the president and the world's richest man, the public is the most likely loser. Four days ago, Musk described the bill as 'disgusting,' 'pork-filled,' and an 'abomination.' He also suggested that Trump was ungrateful, claiming that Republicans would have lost the 2024 election without all the money he had spent supporting GOP candidates. Trump fired back in a post on his network, Truth Social, saying, 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.' Musk then accused Trump of being in 'the Epstein files,' referring to the late financier and sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein, whom both men have ties to. Musk later deleted that post, as well as another calling for Trump's impeachment. If all this seems painfully stupid, it is, and it was all made possible by the erosion of American democracy. The underlying issues, however, are significant despite the surreal nature of the exchange. As it happens, Trump and Musk's dueling criticisms are each, in their own ways, at least partially valid. The bill is an abomination, although not because it's 'pork-filled.' And much of Musk's wealth does come from the federal government, which he has spent the past few months trying to dismantle while preserving his own subsidies. According to Axios, among other things, Musk was angry that the bill cuts the electric-vehicle tax credit, which will hurt the bottom line of his electric-car company, Tesla. But neither billionaire—one the president of the United States and the other a major financial benefactor to the president's party—opposes the bill for what makes it a monstrosity: that it redistributes taxpayer dollars to the richest people in the country by slashing benefits for the middle class, the poor, and everyone in between. The ability of a few wealthy people to manipulate the system to this extent—leaving two tycoons who possess the emotional register of toddlers with the power to impoverish most of the country, to their own benefit, speaks ill of the health of American democracy, regardless of the outcome. Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' would make the largest cuts to food assistance for the poor in history, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, eliminating $300 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program at a time when inflation is still straining family budgets. Some 15 million Americans would become uninsured because of the bill's cuts to Medicaid, also the largest reductions to that program in history, and because of cuts to the Affordable Care Act. The CBPP estimates that about '22 million people, including 3 million small business owners and self-employed workers, will see their health coverage costs skyrocket or lose coverage altogether.' Not everyone would suffer, however, as the bill does offer significant tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America while adding trillions of dollars to the national debt. Whatever meager benefits there are to everyone else would likely be eaten up by the increase in the cost of food and health care caused by the benefit cuts. Charlie Warzel: The Super Bowl of internet beefs For all the insults flying between Trump and Musk, they are both fine with taking from those who have little and giving generously to those who have more than they could ever need. For years, commentators have talked about how Trump reshaped the Republican Party in the populist mold. Indeed, Trumpism has seen Republicans abandon many of their publicly held commitments. The GOP says it champions fiscal discipline while growing the debt at every opportunity. It talks about individual merit while endorsing discrimination against groups based on gender, race, national origin, and sexual orientation. It blathers about free speech while using state power to engage in the most sweeping national-censorship campaign since the Red Scare. Republicans warn us about the 'weaponization' of the legal system while seeking to prosecute critics for political crimes and deporting apparently innocent people to Gulags without a shred of due process. The GOP venerates Christianity while engaging in the kind of performative cruelty early Christians associated with paganism. It preaches family values while destroying families it refuses to recognize as such.
