In public institutions, leadership must be grounded in the understanding that power is a responsibility with limits, and that protecting children requires integrity, not just credentials.
Recent revelations involving Dr. Robert Franklin raise questions that Oklahomans should not simply dismiss. They involve political influence, professional judgment, treatment of children, and a career spent working in settings serving vulnerable young people.
The issue is not whether Franklin has had a long and accomplished career—he clearly has. The question is whether his record demonstrates the transparency, sound judgment, accountability, and commitment to protecting children that Oklahomans should expect from anyone seeking a position of public trust, Oklahoma State Superintendent.
When Influence Becomes Interference
Franklin’s alleged involvement in convincing Temporary State Superintendent Lindel to reverse a public commitment is among the most concerning issues. That deserves scrutiny.
When an outsider leans on a temporary superintendent to walk back a public promise, people deserve to know exactly what happened, why it happened, and how it happened.
Public institutions should operate through transparent processes—not private pressure or informal influence.
The question is not whether people in government may express opinions. Of course they may. The question is whether individuals seeking influence over public education are using that influence appropriately.
Parents deserve leaders who respect institutional boundaries, not leaders who treat personal relationships and private conversations as substitutes for transparent public decision-making.
A CareerTech Meeting Raises Another Question
The setting of the meeting makes the circumstances even more worthy of examination.
CareerTech exists to provide education, training, and workforce development. Government employees who attend professional meetings should be able to expect that their time and attention will be used for legitimate professional purposes.
When a government meeting becomes a venue for political positioning or messaging, citizens are entitled to ask whether the public institution’s purpose has been respected.
That is particularly important when public employees are effectively a captive audience.
Government institutions belong to the public. They should not become platforms for political influence simply because the people in the room are employees who may feel obligated to listen.
The Language Used at the Meeting Matters
The rhetoric reported from the meeting also deserves attention—but precision matters.
The source refers to “feral children” and reports that Drummond described his priority as beginning with “that little newborn.” Those statements should not be attributed to Franklin. Nevertheless, the language reported from the meeting raises legitimate concerns about the tone of the discussion surrounding Oklahoma children and education.
Parents know that raising and educating children is difficult. Teachers know that children’s behavioral, emotional, developmental, and academic challenges can be complicated. Children deserve to be discussed with seriousness, dignity, and respect—not reduced to inflammatory labels.
Words matter, particularly when they are spoken in conversations involving public education and the future of children.
Oklahomans should expect educational leaders to elevate the conversation—not inflame it.
Then There Is Franklin’s Own Recollection
Perhaps more troubling is Franklin’s own recollection of a former student telling him:
“You hit me so hard.”
That statement deserves more than a passing reference. It does not, by itself, establish when the incident occurred, what circumstances surrounded it, or whether any wrongdoing occurred. But when a person seeking public leadership recounts a former student’s statement about being hit by a teacher, parents are entitled to ask questions.
What happened?
How old was the student?
What were the circumstances?
How did Franklin respond?
Was the incident reported or documented?
What did Franklin learn from it?
And what does the episode reveal about his understanding of professional boundaries and the treatment of children?
In today’s educational environment, where schools increasingly recognize the effects of trauma and the importance of safeguarding students, professional judgment matters. At minimum, the statement warrants scrutiny concerning judgment, accountability, and the responsibility educators have toward children entrusted to their care.
Hissom Memorial Center and Raider Treatment Center Cannot Simply Be Written Out of the Record
Franklin’s early‑career history also includes employment at the Raider Treatment Center, a program serving youth with significant behavioral and mental‑health needs. Public descriptions of his career place this role immediately after his work in an alternative school setting and before his move into Sand Springs Public Schools. Like Hissom, Raider served vulnerable young people — and like Hissom, it was a setting where staff were expected to recognize and report signs of maltreatment.
Although Raider was not the subject of litigation on the scale of Hissom, its population and purpose make Franklin’s time there relevant to evaluating his understanding of professional boundaries, child‑protection obligations, and mandated‑reporting responsibilities.
These questions become even more significant when viewed against Franklin’s broader professional history.
Franklin began his education career as a special‑education teacher at the Hissom Memorial Center in January 1981 and worked there until 1986, according to Tulsa Tech’s official biography. Hissom was not an ordinary educational setting.
Federal litigation documented horrific maltreatment of the students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The Homeward Bound v. Hissom Memorial Center case alleged abuse, neglect, injuries, inadequate medical care, unnecessary physical and chemical restraints, and other violations affecting hundreds of residents, most of whom were children.
In 1987, the federal court ordered the closure of Hissom and the development of community-based services. The court also addressed the failure of teachers and staff to report abuse by requiring retraining rather than disciplinary action for those reporting failures.
That history matters.
It does not mean that every employee at Hissom personally participated in abuse. It does not establish that Franklin abused or neglected a child. And it would be unfair to imply otherwise without evidence.
But it does mean that Franklin’s years at Hissom are relevant to evaluating his experience with vulnerable children and his understanding of the obligations that accompany that responsibility.
The Mandated-Reporting Question
Oklahoma law requires school employees who have reason to believe a child is being abused or neglected to report it immediately. The duty is individual and cannot simply be delegated.
Children should not depend on institutions to decide whether their suffering is serious enough to report.
Given Hissom’s documented history, constituents are entitled to ask what Franklin witnessed, what he knew, what training he received, and whether he reported suspected abuse or neglect. If records exist, they should help answer those questions. If the historical record is unclear, Franklin has an opportunity to provide answers.
The point is not to presume guilt. The point is to demand transparency.
A Career Serving Vulnerable Children
Franklin’s work extended beyond Hissom. His official biography states that he later co-founded a nonprofit program serving individuals with disabilities and spent 29 years in teaching and leadership positions with Sand Springs Schools before joining Tulsa Tech in 2010.
That extensive experience makes questions about child protection, professional judgment, and accountability especially important.
Constituents Are Entitled to Ask
Public leadership requires public scrutiny. Parents are entitled to ask:
What occurred at the CareerTech meeting?
What role did Franklin play in influencing the temporary state superintendent?
What did he mean when recounting a former student saying, “You hit me so hard”?
What did Franklin witness at Hissom?
What training did he receive regarding abuse and neglect?
Did he report suspected maltreatment? If so, when and to whom?
If not, why not?
What lessons did he take from Hissom’s documented failures?
How would those experiences shape his approach to protecting Oklahoma’s children?
These are not unreasonable questions. They are questions constituents have a right to ask before entrusting anyone with authority over Oklahoma’s education system.
Experience Is Not the Same as Accountability
A long résumé shows experience, not judgment.
A distinguished career shows persistence, not answers to difficult moments.
Professional reputation cannot replace transparency when legitimate questions arise.
Hissom’s history shows what happens when institutions fail vulnerable people and problems stay hidden. The lesson is not to stop asking questions — but to ask them before granting additional power.
Oklahoma Constituents Deserve Answers — Before They Give Their Trust
The issue is not Franklin’s accomplishments. It is whether the public can trust that, when children are vulnerable, he will:
recognize warning signs,
respect professional boundaries,
act transparently, and
put children’s safety above politics or personal influence.
Confidence cannot be demanded; it must be earned.
From Hissom to public leadership, the question is not what someone has accomplished — but what they did when vulnerable children needed adults to see, speak, and act.
Oklahoma’s children deserve nothing less.
Sources and supporting documentation
Tulsa Tech, Dr. Robert Franklin biography, documenting his January 1981 start as a special-education teacher at Hissom and subsequent career.
Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Federal Court Issues Final Order in 20-Year-Old Hissom Suit, documenting the litigation, court order, and closure of Hissom.
Homeward Bound v. Hissom Memorial Center, Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, summarizing the federal litigation and allegations concerning conditions at Hissom.
Oklahoma statutes concerning the duty to report suspected child abuse or neglect and the individual nature of reporting obligations.
Jason Murphy, Oklahoma State Capital, August 17, 2026, “Newly Released Audio: Drummond, Franklin Get Frank With Government Employees at Controversial CareerTech Meeting,” the source identified for the meeting audio and reported language. [Source supplied for review: Oklahoma State Capital.]