Patterico's Pontifications

1/12/2014

Oklahoma Bill Seeks to Restore Some Common Sense on Zero Tolerance

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:29 pm

I like it:

Schoolchildren in Oklahoma could not be punished for chewing their breakfast pastries into the shape of a gun under a bill introduced this week by a Republican legislator.

Rep. Sally Kern said Wednesday her measure dubbed the Common Sense Zero Tolerance Act was in response to school districts having policies that are too strict or inflexible.

Kern cited a recent Maryland case that gained national media attention where a boy was suspended after his teacher accused him of chewing his Pop Tart into the shape of a gun.

. . . .

Under Kern’s bill, students couldn’t be punished for possessing small toy weapons or using writing utensils, fingers or their hands to simulate a weapon. Students also couldn’t be punished for drawing pictures of weapons or wearing clothes that “support or advance Second Amendment rights or organizations.”

Naturally, the teachers don’t like it:

News9.com reported that Kern’s proposal was met with immediate opposition from the Oklahoma Education Association.

“The proposed legislation removes local control from teachers, counselors, administrators and local school boards. Educators are degreed professionals, trained and experienced in dealing with children,” Linda Hampton, president of the Oklahoma Education Association, told the station.

Degreed, trained, experienced professionals . . . who sometimes punish children for creating gun-shaped Pop Tarts.

Yeah, we’ll just go ahead and remove a little local control, mmmkay?

Thanks to Instapundit.

60 Responses to “Oklahoma Bill Seeks to Restore Some Common Sense on Zero Tolerance”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. Linda Hampton’s weirdo enthusiasm for child abuse is kind of creepy

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  3. Teachers will stop scaring kids when parents start scaring teachers.

    nk (dbc370)

  4. public school teachers are illiterate parasitic pension whores

    by and large anyway

    there’s simply no way to rationalize putting these people in positions where they’re in proximity to young children

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  5. Can Ms. Hampton conceive of a single circumstance in which it is legitimate to discipline a student solely for one of the behaviours listed in the proposed legislation? If not, why the fretting about removal of “local control”?

    bridget (e567b4)

  6. How is a “no tolerance” law or policy a vehicle of local control… or of giving one of those “degreed and trained” professionals room to use claimed training and degreeing? Sounds like those policies dictate the actions the “professional” must take, without exception.

    Actual trained and degreed professionals should be happy to be given authority to examine a situation and react as they deem necessary to resolve that situation. Of course, that comes with the risk of having some sanction applied when that professional makes the wrong decision.
    The zero tolerance concept protects them from being responsible for their actions. Now I get it.

    gramps, the original (64b8ca)

  7. What Gramps said. I’ve been saying the same thing for quite a while.

    Gazzer (74e832)

  8. Seems to me that the proposed law would turn these decisions over to…degreed professionals, trained and experienced in dealing with real and imagined offenses, distinguishing the two, balancing the rights of all concerned, and determining whether and if so how to punish the offenders. In other words, lawyers. Teachers are not trained in any of that, so by their own announced criteria they should applaud rather than protest this proposal.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  9. “Naturally, the teachers don’t like it:”

    Sorry, the Teachers’ Union doesn’t like it.

    Mike K (cd7278)

  10. The cabal out to instill in kids a Pavlovian fear of guns is upset. Good.

    Kevin M (536c5d)

  11. What gramps (the original) and Gazzer said.
    Motion made, seconded, and approved.

    Milhouse, I’m not sure how turning the decisions over to lawyers is an improvement, or was that tongue in cheek?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  12. I was speaking with a teacher friend and her father was with us and he shared a story about being a little 8 year old in a small town in the midwest. He went to school wearing his brand new six-gun in its holster, as well as a cowboy hat. He had just celebrated his birthday. His parents were fine with him wearing them to school and his teacher nor any adult commented about it at school. During class the teacher gave a writing assignment. My friend’s father was irate about it and took out his new six-gun and shot off a round of caps in the classroom in protest. The kids all laughed and clapped while the teacher calmly had him hand over his prized gun. She sat him in the corner for the rest of the afternoon. A note went home, he received a spanking from his mother, and he was not allowed to take his gun to school again.

    It all seemed a very reasonable reaction to a little buckaroo’s ill timed objection.

    We laughed knowing how that exact incident today would have him expelled, in counseling, CPS at his home to investigate the parents, a permanent blot on his school record, return to a non-public school, etc. Of course he is in his early 60′s and so this was at the time when common sense and calm ruled the day; well before hysteria and creating crisis became fashionable.

    Dana (9a8f57)

  13. We’ve all had our run ins with, lets say, unenlightened teachers.

    But I’m thinking its the administrators who are a principle disease infecting our society.

    gary gulrud (e2cef3)

  14. if we fire the administrators they’ll just end up getting other government jobs where momos like them fit in

    but if we fire the teachers they’ll just go work at walmart or 7-Eleven where they can’t do any real harm

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  15. I have a proposal for the objecting teachers (or whoever is really objecting); we’ll let you continue to determine which behaviors need to be punished, while at the same time allowing parents who feel that you have punished their child unreasonably to decide whether to horsewhip YOU.

    There. Local control preserved.

    C. S. P. Schofield (e8b801)

  16. I don’t know what is more sad, that we need legislation to fix this, or that the teachers union is against it.

    Patrick H (b1691f)

  17. Degreed, trained, experienced professionals . . . who sometimes punish children for creating gun-shaped Pop Tarts.

    Aah, but the Pop Tart wasn’t gun shaped. The kid chewed it into what he intended to be a mountain shape. And that’s what he saw when he looked at it.

    The teacher came by and saw a gun.

    So these degreed, trained, experienced professionals punish children for creating Rorschach-shaped pop tarts that reveal the adults’ psychoses and phobias.

    Next they’ll be expelling entire student bodies if the degreed, trained, and experienced professionals look into the sky over the schoolyard and see a gun-shaped cloud.

    Steve57 (f8d67f)

  18. http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1371/5165544474_f548206a75_z.jpg

    The entire city of LA goes into lockdown.

    Steve57 (f8d67f)

  19. *“The proposed legislation removes local control from teachers, counselors, administrators and local school boards. Educators are degreed professionals, trained and experienced in dealing with abusing and brainwashing children,” Linda Hampton, president of the Oklahoma Education Association, told the station.*

    I thought I’d fix that for Ms. Hampton.

    Steve57 (f8d67f)

  20. The reason why the commies in the Teachers Union are upset about this legislation in Oklahoma.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nM0asnCXD0

    Eric Holder “Brainwash People” about Guns

    Steve57 (f8d67f)

  21. MD, that was not tongue in cheek, it was serious. Think about what this law would actually do. Right now what happens when a kid points a finger at someone, or mimes throwing a grenade? The teacher has the vapors, marches the kid to the principal, and the principal decides how to discipline the kid. And this, says the union, is how it should be, because the teacher and principal are “degreed professionals”.

    OK, now suppose the law has been passed, same scenario: kid causes teacher to think nasty thought of weapon, teacher marches kid to principal, and… principal does what? If principal thinks discipline is warranted, she consults the school’s lawyer, to make sure it’s legal, right? Isn’t that what the law would achieve? And this, the union says, is wrong because… the lawyer is not a “degreed professional”?!

    Either way the decision is going to be made by a “degreed professional”. But unlike the teacher and principal, the lawyer’s training is actually relevant. The teacher and principal have been trained in how to deal with kids, but the lawyer has been trained in how to deal with alleged offences and their alleged perpetrators. The lawyer has been trained in how to distinguish real offenses from imaginary ones, the application of standards of evidence, common-sense principles such as de minimis, how to respect the rights of everyone involved, and what sort of penalties are appropriate for what sort of offenses, once they’ve been determined to have happened. The teacher and principal’s training has not even mentioned these concepts. So which “degreed professional” should be making this decision?

    Milhouse (b95258)

  22. removes local control from teachers, counselors, administrators and local school boards.

    LOL — what kind of “local control” does absolute ZERO tolerance allow for, please? When they implement this as ZERO THOUGHT policy, there is no “local control” to be had.

    Smock Puppet, Gadfly, Racist-Sexist Thug, and Bon Vivant All In One Package (225d0d)

  23. Milhouse,

    I would think that many of these things, such as altered pop tarts, do not require consultation with a lawyer. About the only thing that would be worse than an absurd zero tolerance policy that disciplines a child for a pop tart would be a policy that requires consulting a lawyer to know what to do about the pop tart offense.

    The point of the law, as I understand it and have seen it implimented, is that a zero tolerance policy means no one has to decide anything. The rule book says “NO”, so teacher and principle do not have to think.

    but the lawyer has been trained in how to deal with alleged offences and their alleged perpetrators.

    Are jobs for lawyers so hard to come by that you want them on the playground to adjudicate, arbitrate, and pontificate on the legal ramifications concerning whether Johnny really pointed his finger like a gun or whether Johnny was just pointing a finger to indicate who he is talking about?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  24. Let’s not talk silly. I don’t want a lawyer anywhere near my kid. Or a cop. Or a social worker. Or a psychologist. I suppose school nurses and pediatricians are a necessary evil. We send our kids to school to keep those people out of their lives when they grow up. Teachers and principals are supposed to be the experts in managing and supervising children. If they’re not, we’re not training them properly and we’re not weeding out the duds properly.

    nk (dbc370)

  25. BTW, few lawyers have been trained in how to deal with alleged offenses and their alleged perpetrators. Even judges get sent to judges school (really, there are such things) after their election or appointment.

    nk (dbc370)

  26. Kid goes to school forgetting that their Swiss army knife is in the pocket of this jacket, because they were wearing the jacket fiddling around in the garage yesterday. The kid has no record of bad behavior. Zero tolerance rule says kid expelled from school, and after a period of time allowed to re-enroll in lower quality school that deals with “problem kids”.

    There shouldn’t be a zero tolerance reg that does that, and one shouldn’t need a lawyer to make that decision.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  27. I would think that many of these things, such as altered pop tarts, do not require consultation with a lawyer. About the only thing that would be worse than an absurd zero tolerance policy that disciplines a child for a pop tart would be a policy that requires consulting a lawyer to know what to do about the pop tart offense.

    Well, how else could it possibly work? The teacher and principal are having fits, someone has to decide what to do. That someone is either going to be a teacher or a lawyer; who else can it be? And I’d rather have the lawyer do it.

    If the principal had the common sense to understand that there was no offense, and didn’t need to consult a lawyer, then there would be no issue in the first place. The principal would send the kid back to class, maybe tell the teacher to have a cup of tea, a bex, and a lie-down, and nobody outside the school would ever hear a word about it. The whole point is that school principals, being the same sort of people as teachers, tend to have the same views of these things.

    The point of the law, as I understand it and have seen it implimented, is that a zero tolerance policy means no one has to decide anything. The rule book says “NO”, so teacher and principle do not have to think.

    Yes, so what does the law do about that? What can it do about that, except to insert lawyers into the equation. What does any law ever do about anything, except turn it over to lawyers? By definition that’s how laws work.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  28. 23. Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/12/2014 @ 7:23 pm

    I would think that many of these things, such as altered pop tarts, do not require consultation with a lawyer.

    I suspect that if you would investigate, you would discover that they have the zero tolerance = even-handed policy because of lawyers!

    Having a set rule is the way to defend yourself against lawsuits.

    And it is very hard to draw up a rule that captures what is dangerous, or freightening (at least to other children) and doesn’t leave anything out.

    Sammy Finkelman (28600b)

  29. Milhouse, you don’t need a lawyer riding shotgun with you to stop at a red light. Even teachers and principals can be made to understand laws if you speak slowly and use small words.

    nk (dbc370)

  30. You really think inserting lawyers into all of life as an alternative to common sense is the way to go? Does the teacher need to ask a lawyer how many seconds Johnny has to stop talking when asked before he gets sent to the principal’s office?

    And obviously, if you have lawyers deciding issues of child discipline in school, then the parents will have to hire lawyers in return, except most parents don’t have the money to hire a lawyer to defend against pop tart charges.

    The US has far too many lawyers per capita than most of the world. I think there are many places with real violence, not pop tart violence, and maybe we should send some lawyers to those places.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  31. Let’s not talk silly. I don’t want a lawyer anywhere near my kid. Or a cop. Or a social worker. Or a psychologist. I suppose school nurses and pediatricians are a necessary evil. We send our kids to school to keep those people out of their lives when they grow up. Teachers and principals are supposed to be the experts in managing and supervising children.

    That is the teacher union’s point. They are the “degreed professionals” in managing children, and they should be left to do it as they see fit without interference by any stinkin’ lawyers with their bourgeois concepts of civil liberties and the rule of law and all that.

    But they’re wrong, because once a child is alleged to have committed an offense, and is to be punished, the topic is no longer “managing and supervising children” but “dealing with alleged offenses”, and teachers have no training in that at all. The very concepts needed to deal with this are foreign to their training. And that’s why they make the ridiculous and horrible decisions they do, and that they want to keep making.

    If they’re not, we’re not training them properly and we’re not weeding out the duds properly.

    Is this a joke? Teachers’ colleges are the problem, not the solution. They operate like little outposts of the old Soviet Union, like those Japanese soldiers who never heard that the War was over. In general professors of education are not the most competent people in the world; them as can, do, them as can’t, teach, and them as can’t teach, teach teachers. But more than incompetent, the culture in these colleges is socialist and toxic.

    It’s comparable to schools of social work, which openly declare that they won’t pass anyone who doesn’t agree with their left-wing agenda. There are good teachers and social workers, who got their degrees by keeping their heads down and feeding their professors the answers they wanted; but that’s not the usual case.

    So relying on the teachers’ colleges to fix the problem is upside-down.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  32. There shouldn’t be a zero tolerance reg that does that, and one shouldn’t need a lawyer to make that decision.

    Then who should make the decision? Who writes the regs? It’s got to be either teachers, who wouldn’t know a civil liberty if it bit them, or lawyers, who deal with civil liberties all the time.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  33. Comment by Sammy Finkelman (28600b) — 1/12/2014 @ 7:57 pm

    Sammy, you are probably correct, some attorney thought it would be a good idea to protect against litigation by having a zero tolerance policy, hence cause more injustice than wise practice.

    Callous laws and enforcement of law just diminishes respect for the law and authority. Where my boys went to high school there was a “zero tolerance” policy, hence the example of a friend with the Swiss Army knife. Meanwhile, most of the boys had their keys or wallet on a chain that clipped to their belt with a caribiner (sp?- those mountain climbing snap thingies) that could be used as brass knuckles, if not in school, then on the way to and from school where there were no school guards.
    The zero tolerance policy was considered a joke and a way good kids got caught with something by accident.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  34. You really think inserting lawyers into all of life as an alternative to common sense is the way to go?

    If teachers could be relied on to have common sense we wouldn’t be talking about this in the first place.

    Does the teacher need to ask a lawyer how many seconds Johnny has to stop talking when asked before he gets sent to the principal’s office?

    Evidently so. At least in enough cases to have caused the problem this proposed law is intended to fix. I take it you do agree with the proposal? If you do, then of necessity you must support inserting lawyers into the mix, because that’s what laws do.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  35. And obviously, if you have lawyers deciding issues of child discipline in school, then the parents will have to hire lawyers in return, except most parents don’t have the money to hire a lawyer to defend against pop tart charges.

    That won’t be necessary, because the school’s lawyer, knowing that some parents can afford lawyers, will teach the principals and teachers a lesson in real life, and tell them they can’t treat kids like that. But, assuming this proposed law passes, it will be a lawyer telling them that, because who else will?

    Milhouse (b95258)

  36. But they’re wrong, because once a child is alleged to have committed an offense, and is to be punished, the topic is no longer “managing and supervising children” but “dealing with alleged offenses”

    But that is the point of the proposed law and Sammy’s comment. What was once “childish behavior” and managed by grownups became “an offense” because of some policy drawn up by the school district’s legal counsel. The law is just trying to reclaim the ability for grownups to think without consulting a lawyer.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  37. Sammy, you are probably correct, some attorney thought it would be a good idea to protect against litigation by having a zero tolerance policy, hence cause more injustice than wise practice.

    And this proposed law corrects that, so the attorney will have to tell the school that it can’t have such policies any more. Because someone has to, and it isn’t going to be a teacher.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  38. Milhouse, the lawyers that are responsible for the Zero tolerance policies have already demonstrated they know little about real life.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  39. i like the puppet of smock’s observation about zero tolerance

    i also like deviled eggs and anything involving kimberly perry

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  40. The proposed law will correct that by telling the lawyers to leave well enough alone.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  41. But that is the point of the proposed law and Sammy’s comment. What was once “childish behavior” and managed by grownups became “an offense” because of some policy drawn up by the school district’s legal counsel. The law is just trying to reclaim the ability for grownups to think without consulting a lawyer.

    If teachers and school administrators didn’t have their heads up their fundaments there wouldn’t be an issue in the first place. There wouldn’t be anything to tolerate.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  42. The proposed law will correct that by telling the lawyers to leave well enough alone.

    It isn’t the lawyers having vapors because a kid is pretending to be a hero. It’s teachers. By the time it ever gets to a lawyer the “educators” have already made it an issue.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  43. When the school district’s legal counsel tells the administrators to make regulation “X”, that is when the school administrators make regulation “X”.

    If lawyers were the solution to the world’s problems we should be a better country and getting better all of the time.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  44. Lawyers are not qualified to be deciding the fate of one of these kids. Their job is to be either a prosecuter (the good guys) or defender (the not so good guys) after a preliminary investigation determines there is some good cause to get them ( the lawyers) involved.

    How about getting the parents involved before any decision is made? I don’t want a teacher or a lawyer telling my kid that a gun is bad, or the second amendment can’t be spoken about, or just about anything that is values related.

    Zero tolerance policies do not make sense. If a kid hits back after getting hit, both kids get suspended, no breaks regardless of circumstances. That is just creating victims.

    Labcatcher (61737c)

  45. When the school district’s legal counsel tells the administrators to make regulation “X”, that is when the school administrators make regulation “X”.

    You’ve got that upside down. Nobody ever thought to consult the school district’s legal counsel until teachers and administrators started having fainting fits over anything that reminded them of satanic weapons. And no law is going to stop them from having fits. All the law can do is prevent them from punishing the kid for their own psychological issues. And the only way it can do that is by having the school’s lawyer tell them they can’t do this any more.

    Lawyers are not qualified to be deciding the fate of one of these kids.

    Who is better qualified? Teachers?! Administrators?!

    How about getting the parents involved before any decision is made?

    How would that work, exactly? Schools can’t let parents make their disciplinary decisions, or some parents will just let their kids off any discipline at all, no matter how bad their offense. If all you mean is that parents should be heard and ignored, that’s what’s happening now. Ultimately if the legislature is to tell the school how to conduct its business (and I think we all agree that this is necessary) then it will have to be a lawyer who implements the law and tells the school that it can’t punish kids who have done nothing wrong. There isn’t anyone else who can do this.

    I don’t want a teacher or a lawyer telling my kid that a gun is bad, or the second amendment can’t be spoken about, or just about anything that is values related.

    Then don’t send your kid to public school, or to most private schools. If you do, then teachers (not lawyers) will be telling your kid that guns are bad, and all kinds of other things that would horrify you, and all you can do at home is attempt to undo the damage, much like my grandparents in Stalin’s USSR would tell my uncle to ignore everything he learned at school. Probably no law can change that, but at any rate this proposed law doesn’t even attempt to do so.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  46. linda hampton STRANGER DANGER

    mommy make the bad lady go way

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  47. Zero tolerance policies do not make sense. If a kid hits back after getting hit, both kids get suspended, no breaks regardless of circumstances. That is just creating victims.

    Exactly. But whose values do you think such policies reflect? Lawyers’ or teachers’? Lawyers know about there being a right side and a wrong side to a dispute, about justified self-defense, and about the rule of law, i.e. not punishing people who are not even alleged to have done anything wrong. Teachers don’t.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  48. i share with you a backroad I took down round louisiana way

    i looked it up last night

    https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Geismar,+La.&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Geismar,+Ascension,+Louisiana&ll=30.227406,-90.998533&spn=0.007472,0.033023&t=m&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=30.227405,-90.998525&panoid=0C04dsRG3cXzq_QdDZoNTw&cbp=11,325.96,,0,-0.86

    i saw this sort of thing all over those parts

    gorgeous new homes flanked by trailers – but this one stood apart even from that phenomenon cause of the inspired landscapings

    it’s so america it makes you want to cry

    …is that a turkey vulture?

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  49. School districts are required to have sequential discipline guides which are fairly precise with regard to the infraction and consequence . It is not arbitrary or willy-nilly because ultimately whatever decision is made with regard to discipline must be able to be successfully defended in court if it comes to that.

    However, zero tolerance is not exactly that because there is room for some discretionary leeway. It’s not spoken about per se, but I have seen it occur. Discipline is still doled out, however a parents’ involvement and / or extenuating circumstance might alter the extreme decision of ‘zero tolerance’.

    Cultural considerations can play a part in decision making as well.

    Dana (9a8f57)

  50. public schools are child abuse simple as that

    but they’re way cheaper than private school so

    screw the children

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  51. Happyfeet, that’s why there is homeschooling.

    Dana (9a8f57)

  52. homeboy you gonna wish one day you was sitting on the gate of a truck by the lake

    homeschooling good god

    that’s a LOT of togetherness

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  53. Schoolchildren in Oklahoma could not be punished for chewing their breakfast pastries into the shape of a gun under a bill introduced this week by a Republican legislator.

    Whose idea was it to even have a rule on what shapes breakfast pastries could be chewed into?

    Michael Ejercito (906585)

  54. Actually, neither teachers nor lawyers are supposed to be making school rules. That’s the job of local voters, as expressed through their school board and anybody else they choose to hire.

    Clearly it’s time for more direct control of school rules. Possibly all public school rules should be put to a public referendum, and thus tested for stupidity.

    Suburbanbanshee (44ac78)

  55. I see. So most people on this thread would actually support further empowering the central state government, just as long as they agree with the outcome. How enlightening.

    Yes, the teachers’ objection is ridiculous. Yes, zero-tolerance policies are bad ideas. And that’s why there are such things as school boards and PTAs, so parents can nip these things in the bud. Don’t leave it to the state to do what you could do yourselves.

    Demosthenes (26b143)

  56. How about getting the parents involved before any decision is made?
    How would that work, exactly? Schools can’t let parents make their disciplinary decisions, or some parents will just let their kids off any discipline at all, no matter how bad their offense. If all you mean is that parents should be heard and ignored, that’s what’s happening now. Ultimately if the legislature is to tell the school how to conduct its business (and I think we all agree that this is necessary) then it will have to be a lawyer who implements the law and tells the school that it can’t punish kids who have done nothing wrong. There isn’t anyone else who can do this.

    How did you read that comment to mean that the parents make the decision? That is not what I said and l think you know that. Get them involved means exactly that, let them know what is happening, what has been discovered as to what happened and what the alternatives are. I know there are parents who will defend their kid regardless of evidence, but most parents should have input.

    Lawyers will only tell their clients(schools) what they can or can not do, not what is right or best for the kid. Lawyers are adversarial creatures, not neutral arbiters.

    As for not sending my kid to public or private school because the proposed law doesn’t attempt to change the teaching of values, I didn’t think it was supposed to. I thought it was addressing “zero tolerance” rules. I shouldn’t have said what I said about that, it’s irrelevant to this discussion.

    Labcatcher (61737c)

  57. There’s also “zero-tolerance” for drugs, which includes prescription medicines and maye even over the counter drugs.

    Sammy Finkelman (e6d54e)

  58. sammy it includes aspirin

    Labcatcher (61737c)

  59. Private schools in Oklahoma are given consideration. The state has a set of academic standards that serve the expectations of the students in terms of what they should know and what they should do by the end of every school year. They want to guarantee that the students will receive the current and relevant learning experiences in every classroom. The Oklahoma Academic Standards do set expectations for the students to be ready for college, career and citizenship, give focus on conceptual understanding, deep thinking, and real-world problem solving skills.

    Private schools in Oklahoma (526904)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3582 secs.