Public school parent-led group provides social studies curriculum opt-out form

OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) – An Oklahoma public school parent-led group is providing easy access to forms that other parents can fill out with the intent of opting their children out of new controversial social studies standards curriculum.
News 4 has covered the revised standards extensively, which were given the go-ahead by the Oklahoma State Board of Education in February, with a majority vote. The standards feature an increased use of the Bible in the classroom, and also tell students to examine 'discrepancies in the 2020 election,' which has seen a mix of praise and criticism.
Some lawmakers questioned the contents of the social studies standards. They have said the proposed curriculum was factually inaccurate on several topics, including the 2020 election and the COVID pandemic. Legislators have also said the standards contain subjects that were not age-appropriate for each grade level. Legislative leaders allowed the standards to take effect regardless of those complaints.
Lawmakers will not consider resolution to stop proposed controversial social studies standards
'It leaves a lot of room for teaching what a person's personal beliefs are for the teachers versus actual fact-based curriculum,' said Saralynn Boren, with 'We're Oklahoma Education.'
Boren describes the group as being primarily led by Oklahoma parents, but says it has educators, grandparents, and other public education stakeholders involved across Oklahoma as well. She described the group as non-partisan, and said they come together from both sides of the aisle to advocate for inclusive public education.
Boren said the group first started creating opt-out letters to address content from conservative media group, PragerU. The letters have now been modified to address the new social studies standards.
'They're pushing ideologies that all parents aren't going to agree with, all students aren't going to agree with. And that's what we want to give parents the option to opt out of,' said Boren.
State Superintendent Ryan Walters addressed efforts to opt out of the standards during a May 22 news conference, calling the effort 'concerning' when it comes to teaching students American History.
'What we're trying to do is give your kid an understanding of history in America, where America came from, what beliefs influenced those individuals so that then they can understand American history,' said Walters.
Boren pointed out that Oklahoma already allows parents, by law, the opportunity to opt out of instruction that may violate their moral or religious beliefs.
'It's something that the conservatives pushed for saying this parent bill of rights, that parents should have the right to have a say in their students education, and it's the same for all parents,' said Boren.
Walters said Tuesday that while the effort was something he wished parents wouldn't do, he would continue to protect their ability to do what they thought was best for their kids.
'If he wants to talk about championing parents' rights, that he needs to understand that there are other parents that don't always agree with his right-wing ideologies,' said Boren.
It's an effort that may or may not prove to be necessary, with an Oklahoma County District judge set to consider Wednesday at 2:30 p.m. whether to grant an injunction on the social studies standards, which could block them entirely or allow them to move forward.
News 4 reached out to an OSDE spokesperson Tuesday for clarification on whether the opt-out forms are enforceable, but didn't hear back. The forms can be found here.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time​ Magazine

39 minutes ago

• Time​ Magazine

Iran Delivers New Furious Threat to U.S. After Trump Strikes

Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi delivered blistering remarks on Sunday as he responded to the overnight strikes conducted by the U.S. which, overseen by President Donald Trump, targeted three key Iranian nuclear sites. Araghchi warned of 'everlasting,' 'dangerous,' and 'far-reaching' consequences for what the Iranian Foreign Ministry called an 'egregious act of aggression and heinous crime.' Araghchi delivered his response in a speech at the 51st session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in Istanbul, and also via a series of online posts. "The warmongering and lawless Administration in Washington is solely and fully responsible for the dangerous consequences and far-reaching implications of its act of aggression," Araghchi said. 'The U.S. military aggression against the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of a U.N. member state—carried out in collusion with the genocidal Israeli regime—once again laid bare the depth of depravity that governs American foreign policy and revealed the extent of hostility harbored by the U.S. ruling establishment against the peace-seeking and independence-loving people of Iran.' The Iranian politician went on to request an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council, citing 'a violation of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231' and threatened that silence on this matter would only worsen the situation. 'Silence in the face of such blatant aggression would plunge the world into an unprecedented level of danger and chaos,' he warned. Read More: Iran Issues New Grave Warning, Says U.S. Involvement in Israel Conflict Would Be 'Very Dangerous for Everybody' Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian has also condemned the Trump-ordered strikes and referred to the U.S. as the "primary instigator." 'This aggression showed that the United States is the primary instigator of the Zionist regime's hostile actions against the Islamic Republic of Iran,' Pezeshkian said. 'Although they initially tried to deny their role, after our armed forces' decisive and deterrent response and the Zionist regime's clear incapacity, they were inevitably forced to enter the field themselves.' Pezeshkian urged the public to come together in the face of the attacks from Israel and the U.S. Prior to the initial Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets on June 13, conducted amid a growing concern over Iran's nuclear capabilities, Iran and the U.S. had been engaging in talks surrounding a potential nuclear deal. Those talks were suspended in light of the active conflict, and it remains to be seen if they will get back on track. But Araghchi said diplomacy is no longer an option following the U.S. military action. 'They crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities… We have to respond based on our legitimate right for self-defense,' he said. Araghchi's warnings at the council meeting somewhat mirrored the initial reaction he shared via social media. "The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences. Each and every member of the U.N. must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior,' Araghchi said in the early hours of Sunday morning. 'In accordance with the U.N. Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people.' Meanwhile, Trump has referred to the U.S.' attack on three key Iranian nuclear sites as 'very successful.' The U.S. launched a series of B-2 stealth bombers—some of which were reported as moving across the Pacific on Saturday, hours before the strikes were announced—and targeted the sites in Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. 'A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' Trump said in his initial announcement. Read More: How Netanyahu Pushed Trump Toward War The President then went on to address the nation directly from the White House on Saturday night. Flanked by Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Trump said the U.S. bombers had 'totally obliterated' the nuclear sites and called the mission 'a spectacular military success.' Trump instructed Iran to move toward peace, warning that the U.S. would pursue other targets with 'speed' and "precision" if not. The move from Trump marks a significant turning point in the Israel-Iran conflict. The U.S. is no longer supporting Israel from afar, but are now active participants in an extensive military operation aiming to stifle Iran's nuclear capabilities. As the world awaits to see what Iran's next move will be, Trump issued a stark warning to the Middle Eastern country, telling them not to retaliate to the U.S. strikes. 'Any retaliation by Iran against the United States of America will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight,' Trump said in a charged social media post. Meanwhile, Israel and Iran continue to trade deadly missiles in the second week 10 days into their active conflict. Israel's military said Iran launched a fresh wave of missiles toward the country following the U.S. strikes.

The Hill

40 minutes ago

• The Hill

House Democrat: Strike on Iran ‘not necessarily the death blow' to nuclear program

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, suggested the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities are 'not necessarily the death blow' that President Trump claimed when he announced the military action Saturday evening. In an interview on MSNBC, Smith questioned Trump's assessment that the three Iranian nuclear sites were 'totally obliterated' by the strikes and raised the possibility that the U.S. is unaware of more sites. 'President Trump, in his typical fashion, you know, claims facts not in evidence, saying we totally obliterated their whole program,' Smith said. 'Nobody knows that right now. Maybe. Maybe not. We do not know how many of these centrifuges were destroyed.' He also said the U.S. 'can't be 100 percent sure that we knew about all of Iran's centrifuges,' noting the U.S. didn't know about Iran's Fordow nuclear site — one of the three that the U.S. bombed on Saturday — for a decade before it was discovered. And Smith questioned 'how quickly' Iran could reconstitute its nuclear program, adding, 'It sadly does not take that long to build centrifuges once you know how.' 'So it's not necessarily the death blow to Iran's nuclear program. We're still going to have to negotiate with them at some point,' he said. 'So, you know, this assumption that their nuclear program is gone and they'll never be able to build it is simply wrong at this point.' The announcement of U.S. action against Iran came two days after the White House said Trump would decide whether to get involved in the conflict between Iran and Israel 'in the next two weeks' to give a window for negotiations. White House sources indicated the U.S. had given Israel a heads up before it struck the Iranian sites and that Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke after the strikes. The strikes marked a significant entrance by the U.S. into a conflict between Israel and Iran that had been underway for more than a week. They also indicated a shift by Trump, who said he was seeking a diplomatic solution with Iran and sent U.S. officials to make a deal with Tehran on its nuclear program. Smith released a statement on Saturday condemning 'in the strongest terms' Trump's decision to order U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, criticizing the president for acting without congressional approval and without specifying 'clear objectives for these actions.' 'There are no guarantees that it will eliminate the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon or how long it might set their program back,' Smith said in the statement. He said negotiating a nuclear deal is 'the way to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and to protect American service members.' 'The path that the President has chosen risks unleashing a wider war in the region that is both incredibly unpredictable and treacherous and that threatens the safety and security of the United States, Israel, and ultimately the world,' Smith added in the statement.

Atlantic

an hour ago

• Atlantic

Right Move, Wrong Team

The rulers of Iran bet their regime on the 'Trump always chickens out' trade. They refused diplomacy. They got war. They chose their fate. They deserve everything that has happened to them. Only the world's most committed America-haters will muster sympathy for the self-destructive decision-making of a brutal regime. Striking Iran at this time and under these circumstances was the right decision by an administration and president that usually make the wrong one. An American president who does not believe in democracy at home has delivered an overwhelming blow in defense of a threatened democracy overseas. If a single night's action successfully terminates Trump's Iran war, and permanently ends the Iran nuclear bomb program, then Trump will have retroactively earned the birthday parade he gave himself on June 14. If not, this unilateral war under a president with dictatorial ambitions may lead the United States to some dark and repressive places. Trump did the right thing, but he did that right thing in the wrongest possible way: without Congress, without competent leadership in place to defend the United States against terrorism, and while waging a culture war at home against half the nation. Trump has not put U.S. boots on the ground to fight Iran, but he has put U.S. troops on the ground for an uninvited military occupation of California. Iran started this war. In August 2002, courageous Iranian dissidents revealed to the world an Iranian nuclear enrichment plant in Natanz. Suddenly, all those chanted slogans about destroying Israel moved from the realm of noise and slogans to the realm of intent and plan. Over the next 23 years, Iran invested an enormous amount of wealth and know-how in advancing its project to annihilate the state of Israel. Iran deterred Israel from attacking the nuclear project by deploying missiles and supporting terror groups. After the October 7 terror attacks on Israel, Iran gradually lost its deterrence. Israel defeated Hamas and Hezbollah militarily, and the Iranian-allied regime in Syria collapsed. But Iran did not change its strategy. It was Iran that initiated the direct nation-to-nation air war with Israel. After Israel struck an Iranian compound in Syria in April 2024, Iran fired 300 ballistic missiles into Israel, a warning of what to expect once Iran completed its nuclear program. If the war launched by the rulers of Iran has brought only defeat and humiliation to their country, that does not make those rulers victims of anybody else's aggression. A failed aggressor is still the aggressor. Now Americans face the consequences of Trump's intervention to thwart Iran's aggression. Some of those consequences may be welcome. The attack on Iran is the very first time that President Trump has ever done anything Vladimir Putin did not want him to do. That's one of the reasons I personally doubted he would act strongly against Iran. Maybe Trump can now make a habit of defying Putin—and at last provide the help and support that Ukraine's embattled democracy needs to win its war of self-defense against Russian aggression. The strike on Iran was opposed by the reactionary faction within the Trump administration—and in MAGA media—that backs America's enemies against America's allies. It's very wrong to call this faction 'anti-war.' They want a war against Mexico. They have pushed the United States on the first steps to that war by flying drones over Mexican territory without Mexican permission. This faction is defined not by what it rejects, but by what it admires (Putin's Russia above all) and by who it blames for America's troubles (those it euphemistically condemns as 'globalists'). That reactionary faction lost this round of decision-making. Perhaps now they will lose more rounds. But if some of the domestic consequences of this strike are welcome, others are very dangerous. Presidents have some unilateral war-making power. President Obama did not ask Congress to authorize his air campaign in Libya in 2011. The exact limits of that power are blurry, defined by politics, not law. But Trump's strike on Iran has pushed that line further than it has been pushed since the end of the Vietnam War—and the pushing will become even more radical if Iranian retaliation provokes more U.S. strikes after the first wave. Trump has abused the president's power to impose emergency tariffs, and created a permanent system of revenue-collection without Congress. He asserts that he can ignore rights of due process in immigration cases. He has defied judicial orders to repatriate persons wrongfully sent to a foreign prison paid for by U.S. taxpayer funds. He is ignoring ethics and conflicts of interest laws to enrich himself and his family on a post-Soviet scale—much of that money flowing from undisclosed foreign sources. He has intimidated and punished news organizations for coverage he did not like by abusing regulatory powers over their corporate parents. He has deployed military units to police California over the objections of the elected authorities in that state. This is a president who wants and wields arbitrary power the way no U.S. president has ever done in peacetime. And now it's wartime. Americans have a right and proper instinct to rally around their presidents in time of war. But in the past, that rallying has been met by the equal instincts of presidents to rise above party and faction when the whole nation must be defended. Trump's decision to brief Republican leaders of Congress before the Iran strike, but not their Democratic counterparts, was not merely a petty discourtesy—it confirmed his divisive and authoritarian methods of leadership and warned of worse to come. It is not confidence-inspiring that Pete Hegseth leads the Pentagon. Or that Kash Patel, Dan Bongino, and Kristi Noem are in charge of protecting Americans from Iranian retaliatory terrorism. Or that Tulsi Gabbard is coordinating national intelligence. Or that enemy-of-Ukraine J.D. Vance is poised to inherit all. Trump exercises national power, but he cannot and will not act as a national leader. He sees himself—and has always acted as—the leader of one part of a nation against the rest: the wartime leader of Red America in its culture war against Blue America, as my former Atlantic colleague Ron Brownstein has written. Now this president of half of America has commanded all of America into a global military conflict. With luck, that conflict will be decisive and brief. Let's hope so.