October 23, 2013

Honorable Ellen F. Rosenblum Attorney General Oregon Department of Justice 1162 Court St. NE Salem, OR 97301-4096 The Honorable Ellen Rosenblum, RE: Filing of complaint

cc: Betsy Miller-Jones, Executive Director, OSBA, 1201 Court St NE #400, Salem, OR 97301 Rob Saxton, Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, 255 Capitol St NE, Salem, OR 97310 OSB General Council, Unlawful Practice of Law, PO Box 231935, Tigard, OR 97281-1935

(Underlining added for emphasis. Blue script is quoted from the Guide. Laws are in italics.) We are filing a complaint against the Oregon School Board Association (OSBA) and Rob Saxton, Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction on the matter of the content of their issued Guide to Common Core State Standards. Betsy Miller-Jones, Executive Director of OSBA, has stated they will distribute copies of this guide as we meet with board members and superintendents throughout October as part of our Fall Regional meetings. It is also posted on their website. She further states their source of information, as stated in correspondence to board members, the OSBA Board of Directors heard from Rob Saxton, Oregon's deputy superintendent of public instruction, about the Common Core State Standards and other pressing education issues. There are also local school board members that heard Rob Saxton make the threats stated in the guide and more recently he threatens school principals and administrators to force teachers into teaching the standards and make sure they do. This mandate threatens teachers from doing the best for the students, and threatens them from reporting issues that should be considered by school boards and administrators to properly evaluate their education program. Numerous reports have come to our groups that principals and administrators say our hands are tied and we dont have a choice. Reports from teachers is that they cannot speak out and are told they have to teach exactly what is given them causing more parents to look at alternatives to public schools. (Rob Saxtons threats to administrators and teachers here: http://watchdogwire.com/northwest/2013/10/16/deputy-superintendent-saxton-im-an-s-o-b/ ) We find these threats to be coercion under ORS 163.275 and bribery under ORS 162.015. The threats in this Guide attempt to influence or persuade school boards and personnel to do something they otherwise would not have done, or influence them to not teach curriculums best suited or supported by their district or schools. We maintain that the coercion has created fear on the part of teachers that exemplifies false witness used in misleading statements. We also find such threats influence the judgment, actions, decisions or exercise of discretion in the official capacity of local school board members or school superintendents. The State Board of Education is directly bound by ORS 162.015 in their policies.

The Guide is found on OSBAs website here: http://www.osba.org/~/media/Files/Resources/Improving%20Education/SAG/Guide%20to%20C ommon%20Core%20State%20Standards.pdf We seek: 1. A cease and desist against the Oregon School Board Association and Rob Saxton, Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, in making illegal threatening (coercion and bribery) statements to school boards, superintendents, principles, and other school personnel; and cease distributing the Guide to Common Core State Standards. 2. That the Department of Education and Oregon State Board Association be instructed to retract threatening statements in the guide and other coercive statements made by Rob Saxton by notifying school superintendents and local school boards of their statutory responsibility and freedom to adopt curriculum with local input assuring districts and schools of their statutory rights and federal and state constitutional protections. The notice also needs to include protection for teachers to express their profession experience in classrooms without repercussion in order for school districts to be accurately informed so they can meet and improve their educational standards. We also submit that OSBA and Rob Saxton are practicing law without a license by giving legal opinions. Their interpretation of ORS 327.103 is a legal opinion and they directly asserted that opinion as a mandate for school districts as a basis to require teaching the Common Core standards. We will explain how their opinion conflicts with other statutes. We question the truthfulness of statements under the section How did Common Core State Standards come to Oregon? and What is a local school boards responsibility? The later states, Local school boards do not adopt the Common Core State Standards then turns around and titles the next section, What happens if a district doesnt adopt the Common Core State Standards? It is true that Division 22 does not mandate local districts adopt Common Core State Standards (CCSS), so why then does the Guide follow with threats for not adopting CCSS. This is where we will focus my complaint on the threats of coercion and bribery aimed at superintendents and school boards Analysis of statements made in What happens if a district doesnt adopt the Common Core State Standards? (Guide statements copied in blue for your convenience.) What happens if a district doesn't adopt the Common Core State Standards? Noncompliance with state guidelines can result in the withholding of school funds. Oregon law (ORS 327.103(1)) provides that "all school districts are presumed to maintain a standard school district until the school district has been found to be deficient by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, pursuant to standards and rules of the state Board of Education." Under ORS 327.103(2), if the Superintendent of Public Instruction finds that a school district is deficient, and corrective action is not taken or an extension granted by the beginning of the following school year, then portions of the State School Fund may be withheld until the deficiencies are corrected.

The implication in this paragraph is that it is directly written to force school districts to adopt the state standards and curriculum. This implication conflicts with several statutes starting with 329.025 Characteristics of school system. (17) Ensures that local schools have adequate control of how funds are spent to best meet the needs of students in their communities. ORS 327.103(2) goes on to says that is left out, the Superintendent of Public Instruction may withhold portions of State School Fund moneys otherwise allocated to the school district for operating expenses until such deficiencies are corrected unless the withholding would create an undue hardship, as determined pursuant to rules of the State Board of Education. The correction this section refers to, district could correct the deficiency through merger, indicates a physical deficiency. Even the rule (581-022-0807) implies physical or functioning deficiencies as it talks of practices or conditions needing improvement from a desk audit or on-site visit. Using this citation as a mandate for adopting Common Core is a legal opinion and inappropriately used in the Guide as a threatening tool when the statutes gives local boards full authority to select their curriculum with public input and shall not be dictated by the state. The rule to implement ORS 327.103 states: 581-022-0807 (Division 22) Standardization (1) A school district, to be standard, must provide acceptable educational opportunities for all Oregon students who reside in the district regardless of where they live in the district. (2) Local school districts shall cooperate with procedures to verify compliance with state standards, to collect information about schools, to identify exemplary performance, and to promote school improvement. (3) Methods of verifying compliance and identifying practices or conditions needing improvement shall include: (a) Assurances of the district school board designated chief administrative officer; (b) Review of district materials through Department of Education desk audit; (c) On-site review of practices or conditions; and (d) Other methods selected by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. (3) The Superintendent or a designee of the superintendent shall declare a school district as Nonstandard as defined in OAR 581-022-0102, after verification through the methods described in section (2) of this rule. Stat. Auth.: ORS 326.051 Stats. Implemented: ORS 326.051 &327.103 The Guide goes on to say: Additionally, a school district found to be out of compliance must submit a corrective plan within 90 days that is acceptable to the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Otherwise (barring natural disaster), further State School Funds may be withheld until an acceptable corrective plan is submitted. ORS 329.095(1)(b)(C) says the department cant require a school to do an evaluation more frequently than once in a biennium. Further, ORS 327.103 goes on to say the State School Funds

cannot be withheld if it creates undue hardship. Also, ORS 329.065 Adequate funding required. Nothing in this chapter is intended to be mandated without adequate funding support. ORS 329.095. (1)(a) The Department of Education shall require school districts and schools to conduct self-evaluations and to periodically update their local district continuous improvement plans. Except as provided by paragraph (b)(C) of this subsection, the department may not require school districts or schools to conduct self-evaluations or to update their local district continuous improvement plans more frequently than biennially. Guide continues to say: Practically speaking, failure to implement the Common Core State Standards adopted by the state Board of Education could have significant financial repercussions, since districts receive the majority of their funding from the State School Fund. A district could also face losing federal funding, since academic content standards are a requirement of the No Child Left Behind Act and Oregons waiver under the legislation. Contrarily, School districts that adopt Common Core State Standards in response to a threat from the state and do not follow the law (ORS 329.045) are in violation of the law. Regardless of what the Department of Education claims, parents did not have an educated input into the state adopting the Common Core State Standards. We also claim that teachers and school administrators werent fully educated to give intelligent input into this decision. Now that the Department of Education has made CCSS the state standards, districts are not legally required to adopt those standards and parents and teachers want their say as allowed by the law without the stigma of the states threats. Teachers around the state are in fear of losing their positions if they tell the truth about curriculum problems in their subjects. The law specifically gives school districts the authority to have adequate control of how funds are spent to best meet the needs of students in their communities (329.025), maintain control over course content, format, materials and teaching methods (329.045), receive adequate funding support (329.065), are required to seek public input in the process of establishing standards (329.085), and involve the public in setting of local goals of self-evaluation (329.095). While ORS 329.025 states the districts must offer students instruction in mathematics, science, English, history, geography, economics, civics, physical education, health, the arts and second languages that meets the academic content standards adopted by the State Board of Education and meets the requirements adopted, it does not mandate it be the Common Core Standards, nor could it to comply with other statutes. 329.045 Revision of Common Curriculum Goals, performance indicators, diploma requirements, Essential Learning Skills and academic content standards; instruction in academic content areas. (1) In order to achieve the goals contained in ORS 329.025, the State Board of Education shall regularly and periodically review and revise its Common Curriculum Goals, performance indicators and diploma requirements. This includes Essential Learning Skills and rigorous academic content standards in mathematics, science, English, history, geography, economics, civics, physical education, health, the arts and second languages. School districts and public charter schools shall maintain control over course content, format, materials and teaching

methods. The regular review shall involve teachers and other educators, parents of students and other citizens and shall provide ample opportunity for public comment. (3) School districts and public charter schools shall offer students instruction in mathematics, science, English, history, geography, economics, civics, physical education, health, the arts and second languages that meets the academic content standards adopted by the State Board of Education and meets the requirements adopted by the State Board of Education and the board of the school district or public charter school. 329.065 Adequate funding required. Nothing in this chapter is intended to be mandated without adequate funding support. Therefore, those features of this chapter which require significant additional funds shall not be implemented statewide until funding is available. 329.085 Assessment of schools and school districts required; report; standards. (2) The board shall establish the standards, including standards of accessibility to educational opportunities, upon which the assessment is based. (3) On a periodic basis, the board shall review school and school district standards and credit and performance requirements. The board shall seek public input in this process. 329.095. (1) (c) The self-evaluation process conducted as provided by this subsection shall involve the public in the setting of local goals. The school districts shall ensure that representatives from the demographic groups of their school population are invited to participate in the development of local district continuous improvement plans to achieve the goals. (3) At the request of the school district, department staff shall provide ongoing technical assistance in the development and implementation of the local district continuous improvement plan. If, in fact, as the Guide implies, a school district cannot meet the state standards adopted by the Department of Education except through the Common Core federal standards, then we shall claim the Oregon State Board Association as authorized by the state of Oregon has violated the statutes by adopting such standards that takes away all rights of the districts, community, public, and parents. To implement CCSS, Oregon State Board Association has selected Smarter Balance, a multistate consortium, as the assessment tests to replace OAKS. The participation of Oregon in the consortium does not include the writing or direct development of the assessment system as ORS 329.485 (2) requires, neither does it involve public and parent input as intended by the statute. The statute was passed with the full support of the public assuming they would have input, that Oregon would have full control of developing assessment tests for measuring Oregons education system. We challenge the legal participation in Smarter Balance as the assessment tests are driving the Oregon State Board Association to mandate and threaten school districts to adopt Common Core in violation of the law, which takes away statutory and constitutional rights from school districts. Rob Saxton admitted that the new testing by Smarter Balance will fail. (See evidence here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQxOR5sVtKg )

ORS 329.485 (2)(a) The Department of Education shall implement statewide a valid and reliable assessment system for all students that meets technical adequacy standards. The assessment system shall include criterion-referenced assessments including performance-based assessments, content-based assessments, and other valid methods to measure the academic content standards and to identify students who meet or exceed the standards. (b) The department shall develop the statewide assessment system in mathematics, science, English, history, geography, economics and civics. We also challenge the constitutionality of the threat to withhold funding. Oregons Constitution, Article VIII, Section 4 and 8 requires the distribution of school funds to counties in proportion to the children. It does not allow for threats to withhold funds even if found to be deficient, and certainly not a curriculum deficiency. Article VIII Section 4. Distribution of school fund income. Provision shall be made by law for the distribution of the income of the common school fund among the several Counties of this state in proportion to the number of children resident therein between the ages, four and twenty years. Section 8. Adequate and Equitable Funding. (1) The Legislative Assembly shall appropriate in each biennium a sum of money sufficient to ensure that the states system of public education meets quality goals established by law, and publish a report that either demonstrates the appropriation is sufficient, or identifies the reasons for the insufficiency, its extent, and its impact on the ability of the states system of public education to meet those goals. (2) Consistent with such legal obligation as it may have to maintain substantial equity in state funding, the Legislative Assembly shall establish a system of Equalization Grants to eligible districts for each year in which the voters of such districts approve local option taxes as described in Article XI, section 11 (4)(a)(B) of this Constitution. The amount of such Grants and eligibility criteria shall be determined by the Legislative Assembly. Finally, in states with local control of schools, which Oregon statutes ensure, school districts that replace or do not adopt the Common Core State Standards, but adopt a different set of standards are entitled to receive state and federal funding. Common Core is an unconstitutional federal program so implementation is illegal in states with local control of schools. By implementing this program, the state is ignoring the U.S. Constitution, the Oregon Constitution, and our state statutes governing local control of schools. A Wisconsin Director, Common Core State Standards Team, Emilie Amundson, of the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction explained that each school board has the statutory authority to adopt any set of standard, inferior or superior. Decisions regarding standards, curriculum, and instruction are the responsibility of school boards with community involvement. The type, quality, and scope to those standards are included. (http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/09/eliminate-common-core-keep-state-federaldollars/ )

In summary: We are seeking a cease and desist against the Oregon School Board Association and Rob Saxton, Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, in making illegal threatening (coercion and bribery) statements to school superintendents and school boards, and cease distributing the Guide to Common Core State Standards. We further seek that the Department of Education be instructed to issue an explanation to school superintendents and school boards of local statutory responsibility and freedom to adopt curriculum with local input assuring districts and schools of their statutory rights and federal and state constitutional protections. And, that funding is not based on their choice of curriculum. We further seek the notice include protection for teachers to express their profession experience in classrooms without repercussion to benefit school districts to be accurately informed so they can make educated decisions to meet and improve their educational standards. Sincerely, Donna Bleiler Chairman, Oregon AsAMom Supporting Groups: Radical Moms in Oregon We the Parents SPEAK