Pack v. State Tulsa 912 Talking Points Regarding Constitutionality of HB3399

8/11/2019 Pack v. State Tulsa 912 Talking Points Regarding Constitutionality of HB3399

1/3

The Tulsa 9.12 Project BriefTalking Points

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.


2/3

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 cou rt 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 individualschool 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.


3/3

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 tothe development of the State's Education Standards.

Documents

Pack v. State Tulsa 912 Talking Points Regarding Constitutionality of HB3399