The Tulsa 9. Project is challenging the constitutionality of HB 3399. The issue of ripeness often arises in cases where the harm has not yet been done. The Petitioners are seeking a stay of the implementation of The Common Core standards.
The Tulsa 9. Project is challenging the constitutionality of HB 3399. The issue of ripeness often arises in cases where the harm has not yet been done. The Petitioners are seeking a stay of the implementation of The Common Core standards.
The Tulsa 9. Project is challenging the constitutionality of HB 3399. The issue of ripeness often arises in cases where the harm has not yet been done. The Petitioners are seeking a stay of the implementation of The Common Core standards.
I. Introduction Background on the Tulsa 9.12 Project and why it is submitting this Brief in Opposition of Petitioners. Quote: II. Factual Background III. ARGUMENT Proposition I:Jurisdiction is Improper and this Matter Should be Dismissed. A. The Issues Tendered by the Petitioners are not Ripe for Review. " The Tulsa 9.12 Project has long been committed to informing the citizens of the state of Oklahoma about good practical education standards and techniques as well as working with legislators in the development of Oklahoma's education standards. It has spent several years attempting to prevent the Oklahoma Academic Standards ("OAS") (commonly referred to as "Common Core") from being implemented in the state of Oklahoma, and worked with the Legislature in securing the passage of HB 3399." 1. In 2010, the Oklahoma Legislature passed SB 2033. The Legislature forced the Board to adopt the Common Core State Standards. The Legislature asserted its authority as superior to the Board's in developing education standards. 2. No objection was raised by the Oklahoma State Board of Education. 3. The Common Core standards were not to be mandatory for school districts until the 2014-15 school year. During the past year, as many school districts began to implement Common Core it became apparent that the people of the State of Oklahoma did not want those standards, but wanted education standards which are developed in Oklahoma. 4. To remedy the situation, the Legislature passed HB 3399. HB 3399 removed the provisions for Common Core and directing the Board to develop new education standards to be presented to the legislature on or by August 1, 2016. Additionally, schools were to either continue using or revert back to the education standards used prior to the passage of SB 2033. 5. In order to prevent the issues with the education standards from reoccurring; the Legislature included a provision in HB 3399, 4, which directs the Board to submit the proposed education standards to the Legislature for approval before implementation. It is this provision that Petitioners find abhorrent and have brought this suit before the Court challenging the constitutionality of HB 3399. 1. The question of ripeness often arises in cases where the harm asserted by the petitioner has not yet occurred. 2. Here it is generally unknown how the Legislature may impose the authority to review the standards two (2) years from now, and ruling made by this court would be surely speculative. 3. Petitioners' case hinges on abstract and hypothetical circumstances relating to the Oklahoma Legislature reviewing education standards which have not been developed and are not due to be presented until 2016. 4. The education standards to be implemented this coming August are the same ones that have been used and approved by the Board of Education prior to the passage of SB 2033 (2010). For many of the schools in the state of Oklahoma, these standards were the ones used for the 2013-14 school year and would require no change from the individual school districts. 5. Here the issues complained of by the Petitioners regard provisions which are not possibly taking effect until 2016. According to HB 3399, the State Board of Education is directed to develop new standards and those standards will be reviewed by the Legislature in the future. In fact, Petitioners even acknowledge that the practical result of the Legislature's actions by actual experience cannot yet be judged in their own Brief to the Court! 1. To establish standing, the Petitioners must show (1) a concrete, particularized, actual or imminent injury in fact, (2) a causal connection between the injury and the alleged misconduct, and (3) a protected interest "within a statutorily or constitutionally protected zone. 2. First, there is no concrete, particularized, actual or imminent injury in fact. Petitioners complaint is against a provision for the State Board of Education to develop new standards which are to be presented to the Legislature in 2016. The education standards to be implemented this coming August are the same ones that have been used and approved by the Board of Education. 3. Second, there is no misconduct by the Legislature. The Oklahoma Constitution authorizes and obligates the Legislature to maintain the public education system. In fulfilling this obligation the Legislature has to establish standards. 4. Finally, Petitioners do not have a protected interest within a statutorily or constitutionally protected zone. There is nothing within our State Constitution or in the statutes which B. The Petitioners do not have the Proper Standing to bring this Matter before this Court.
authorizes suits out of the Legislature's development and implementation of education standards. 1. Except for the reservation of the power of initiative and referendum, the state's policy- making power is vested exclusively in the Legislature. This court has already held the Legislature's policy-making power specifically includes public education. 2. While there is no dispute that the Board is constitutionally empowered with "the supervision of instruction of public schools". It is a stretch to interpret "supervision" as setting or creating the applicable standards for instruction and assessment without the Legislature's input. In fact, a more reasonable interpretation of the duties of the Legislature would include direct involvement in the development of the standards. 1. As stated previously, it has already been held the Legislature's policy-making power specifically includes public education. As such the Legislature may invoke its natural power to review the standards adopted by the State Board of Education, and has done so on numerous occasions. 2. 3. It is clear that the Legislature completely stripped the Board of any power in developing the State's education standards with the passage of SB 2033 (2010). 4. In reality, HB 3399 gives the authority in developing standards back to the Board. Proposition II: Petitioners are Wrong in Asserting HB3399 Violates the Oklahoma State Constitution. A. HB 3399 does not infringe on the Constitutional Authority of the Board. B. HB 3399 does not violate Oklahoma's Constitutional Separation of Powers. This relationship is analogous of the Legislature being the parent of a child, while the State School Board is the babysitter. The babysitter is instructed by the parent to oversee the behavior of the child and has some discretion when it comes to the minute details when dealing with the child, but the ultimate authority is the parent. Here just as in times past, the Legislature is the ultimate authority when it comes to the development of the State's Education Standards.