Outcome Based Education "Longing" for the Old Model T Position Paper 2 By Rev. Wayne C. Sedlak FOREWARNING The subject of this report, OBE (Outcome Based Education), is a many-faceted, federal "octopus" which carries deadly potential for an already declining educational system. It is yet another classic case of the "cure" being worse than the disease itself. Future reports will focus upon such topics as the enormous costs of implementing OBE, the documented failures of such programs around the country, and the "shadowy" as well as dangerous origins of this new federal power grab. Dr. William Spady is the Director of the High-Success Program on Outcome-Based Education and the OBE proponent who coined the name. Not too long ago, he predicted that soon America's schools would be very different from what most of us have ever known. Apparently, current structuring, built upon the framework of grades, subjects, class rank, seat-time and semesters would be relegated to the junkyard of a bygone era. So as to make his point perfectly clear, he stressed the necessity for change. "If you want to restructure," he said, " you can't put another coat on the old Model T." As a part-time 'Spady-watcher', I have long since learned that 'Spady-quotes' invariably link two genetic strains: graphic edu- babble with a surprise twist. Sort of like reading hieroglyph with an O'Henry ending. I'm still reeling from his analysis as to why so many American children are failing in today's schools. To put it in his terms, children fail "...because we make it (failure) available." THE "NEED" FOR RESTRUCTURING So, the need is for "restructuring", and OBE is the proposed solution. However, it doesn't take too much "reading between the lines" to realize that Dr. Spady wants to eliminate the "Model T" while building his new educational model. By "Model T", he is referring to previous educational approaches. Of course, the true "Model T" approach which educators like Spady have long since abandoned is that which advocated fixed absolutes, decentralized private education, respected Judeo-Christian values, emphasized "graces" and gifts in child development, and honored family government and privacy. Since Dr. Spady and others are building a new model for education, one must ask the question, "why build anything" so "new ", as many OBE proponents purport it to be? An examination of purpose is appropriate at this point and, not surprisingly, Dr. Spady serves us well. He makes the following "Assumption Regarding the Future": Despite the historical trend toward intellectual enlightenment and cultural pluralism, there has been a major rise in religious and political orthodoxy, intolerance, fundamentalism, and conservatism with which young people will have to be prepared to deal. Since few people would ever consider their own opinions "heretical" (not to mention "intolerant") one is forced to inquire as to what constitutes "religious and political orthodoxy" in Dr. Spady's view. It is very clear that OBE is designed to arm the mass of public school students with politically correct attitudes toward certain apparent problem groups. The influence of such groups will be neutralized by this well-trained mass of government school students. That this is one major purpose of OBE was revealed in the Wisconsin WASB Convention on January 20, 1993. One of the members of the State Educational Goals committee stated: We have to promote positive public relations to counteract the fundamentalists and taxpayers negative public relations efforts. It would appear from this statement that just about everyone in Wisconsin has been included in the "old Model T" ...and has been "riding" in it a bit too long. An interesting testimony concerning this statement and Dr. Spady's similar emphasis (noted above) was presented to that very committee publicly on February 9,1993 by Ted Mueller, who is the president of the Independent School Board Members of Wisconsin. His warning bears special attention: Notice the word "fundamentalist" appears in both of these statements. This is a classic example of OBE in action. This individual, on the state goals committee, has set outcomes for what they have determined to be 'positive' (the support of the state educational goals without question), has assessed certain groups as having a politically incorrect attitude that does not meet those outcomes ( fundamentalists and taxpayers), and then suggests a public relations campaign ... to bring them into conformity. These are the tactics the state's children will be subjected to under the OBE philosophy. The "need" for educational restructuring appears to be none other than the "need" for coerced political and religious conformity. Such an accusation is hardly overstating the issue. Port Lavaca, Texas instituted its OBE program and immediately drew intense opposition for its obvious political agenda and orientation. Said one articulate opponent of OBE: Every OBE program that I am aware of, regardless of who promotes it, is not based on an academic agenda; it is based on a political agenda... [The outcomes] are all designed to promote radical environmentalism, socialism and a global one- world government...[with]...an atheistic, agnostic or New Age religious orientation. UNIVERSALIZING ERROR What is the ONLY entity on the face of the earth which is able to "universalize" error? Look for the answer in that institution which society invests with the fearful power to sanction...the power of the sword. Government alone is feared in this respect. By comparison, all other institutions and "culture-carriers" merely express their opinions... albeit, perhaps, quite persuasively. But government has the power to exert its will through laws, police, courts, fines, and imprisonment. As such, it is feared; therefore it is obeyed. Our American heritage recognized this fundamental principle and tied government "...to the chains of the Constitution," as Tom Jefferson put it. George Washington expressed this sentiment, "Like fire, government is, at best, a dangerous servant and, at worst, a fearful master." Thus an age-old truth must be clearly understood by those who love peace and liberty. "He who rules, sanctions." "Rule" is never an option with government; the citizen must obey... or he must face the badge and the gun. The ability to mandate "outcomes" therefore is a fearful power of unrestrained government. Dictating mass opinion through government education undermines independent thinking, freedom of speech and privacy of conduct and belief. In addition, it presents the possibility of passing on coerced error "en masse". However, its potential wrongdoing is greatly overshadowed by the certainty of another pitfall. Renowned Christian scholar, J.Gresham Machen, in combating a far lesser national educational reform threat in 1925, observed: But the most serious fault of this program for "character building" is that it makes morality a product of experience, that it finds the norm of right conduct in the determination of that 'which is justified by the experience of multitudes of worthy citizens who have been Uncle Sam's boys and girls since the foundation of the nation.' That is wrong...because it bases morality upon...experience...Moral standards were powerful only when they were invested with an unearthly glory...The truth is that decency cannot be produced without principle. It is useless to try to keep back the raging sea of passion with the mud-embankments of an appeal to experience. Instead, there will have to be recourse again, despite the props afforded by the materialistic paternalism of the modern State, to the stern, solid, masonry of the law of God. An authority which is man-made can never secure the reverence of man... In other words, since his experience is ever changing, man can never be sure that he has "arrived" at truth unless he has a standard of fixed absolutes to guide him. He will always "strive" without the ASSURANCE of certainty. When a nation does this, through its government schools' appeal to national dignity and patriotism the results will invariably be universal error. Taking this position in 1925, Machen said, "We blamed Germany for this kind of thing...yet now we advocate...the same (method)." National, universal error is a certainty, given experience as the ever-changing standard AND sanctioned mandates as a means. OBE, as a system, begins with a list of mandated, state-approved "outcomes". Although such "outcomes" are alleged to be the creation of statewide parent-teacher cooperative groups and consensus (as if that should make a difference for YOU who had no input in such committees), it is repeatedly found that the "outcomes" or goals of testing and graduation are generally the same as those adopted throughout the entire country. Connecticut and Pennsylvania goals were at one point "word- for- word the same", according to OBE expert (though not advocate) Peg Luksik of Pennsylvania. This, despite the fact that the goals were supposed to have been determined independently by parents and teachers in those states. How that may be accomplished through unsuspecting individuals is an application of what may be called "consensus- engineering". Such is beyond the scope of this study. However, the fact remains that the uniformity of the outcomes is a function of the U.S. Departments of Education, Labor, and Commerce. Their leadership makes such a consensus formidable especially in light of the fact that such "heavy-hitters" are behind it. Is it any wonder that failure to "demonstrate" the approved outcomes concerning environmentalist attitudes, multi-cultural expression, human growth and development, sexual alternatives, societal (collectivist) values and a host of "correct" political and religious views will be sanctioned to the point that diplomas will be denied to those who do not conform to the required testing? Incidentally, employers will be required to seek resumes FROM SCHOOLS for job applicants. All students will be tracked from school to future jobs. One wonders how this will impact "non-conformist" students and families. Such sanctions are a terrible threat to the freedoms which this nation has espoused historically. One should ask, how will outcomes be implemented for each student? At the risk of repeating an earlier position paper, it might be good to review the OBE approach to each student. The system will be implemented through a thorough assessment (testing) program. The student will be given "pre-tests" to determine information on his/her current attitudes on a wide variety of subjects (which would very often reflect the opinions of their parents, especially when dealing with elementary testing). Afterwards, "learning nuggets" will be served up to them to instruct them as to the correct responses to the issues presented. Then the assessment tests will determine to see if they understand the correct responses. So far, this procedure still falls within the parameters of past methodology (waiving for a moment considerations of the nature of the material itself). However, what happens next is a virtual "revolution" in educational approach. If the student fails to give the appropriate responses to the questions, he is then REMEDIATED. That simply means that he will be given further "learning nuggets" on the same type of issue and re-tested until he learns to give the correct response. He will be refused graduation to the next learning level until he gives the correct response through remediation testing (called "reassessment"). In short, he must give the state mandated "correct" answer to all outcomes, which answer may often involve a problem of conscience or conflict with positions espoused in the home and church. Again, if a student does not answer correctly, he cannot advance. By force of law, he must be "remediated", i.e., he goes through the "learning-testing" loop again and again until he "gets it". In any other context this would simply be called what it really is... "brainwashing". SANCTIONS, ENTRAPMENT AND THE INVASION OF PRIVACY The May 7, 1990 edition of Parade magazine carried an article entitled "Should You Tell ALL?" In the article, Bernard Gavzer wrote about an employee test which attempted to predict whether an applicant might be trustworthy in character. Some of the questions involved sexual as well as very personalized issues. An applicant for a position at a local store questioned the legitimacy of such testing. Though hired, he was fired ten days later. His case became the key focus in a class-action suit involving these types of personality testing. Eakman documents the type of questioning which was involved in the book EDUCATING FOR THE NEW WORLD ORDER. True or False: I have insecurities and feelings of inferiority. It would be nice to have enough money to never have to work again. As a child, there were times I hated my mother and father. How often do you insist on having things your way? How often are you embarrassed? Have you ever done anything you feel guilty about? If one should guess wrong on any of the questions, one can be denied a means of making a living. Harvard law professor Alan M. Dershowitz stated for the Parade article: On the basis of such a test...you can be penalized simply because a test says you may have a proclivity to be dishonest. In other words, you are guilty without a trial....Truly honest people, reveal proclivities, [and] have to fail the test. (Reference Eakman's EDUCATING FOR THE NEW WORLD ORDER). Such an invasion of privacy has already been ruled upon in the courts. In the case of KAMOWITZ vs. the DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH (1973), precedent was set with the rights of individuals in a "captive setting" with regard to their personal thoughts and feelings. The court stated, Intrusion into one's intellect when one is involuntarily detained and subject to the control of institutional authorities, is an intrusion into one's protected right of privacy. If one is not protected in his thoughts, behavior, personality, and identity then the right of privacy becomes meaningless. Unfortunately, as Eakman points out, educational institutions do hold children "captive", legally speaking , but oddly, are exempted from the force of "captive-environment protection". Children who are subjected to personality altering methodologies in a captive setting have no protection from the procedures. Their right to privacy is automatically violated and they are required to comply...or else. Attorneys Charles W. Sherrer and Ronald A. Roston, in the 1971 Spring issue of the FEDERAL BAR JOURNAL explained the problem more succinctly (as cited by Eakman): ..any personality test constitutes an invasion of privacy, as the person tested rarely understands the implications of all the questions... or the significance of the responses. The tests may not only reveal the thoughts and feelings which the student desires to withhold from others but those he is trying to keep from his own consciousness. CRITICS OF OBE HAVE REPEATEDLY CHARGED THAT OBE MOST DEFINITELY FALLS INTO THIS CATEGORY OF PERSONALITY TESTING. Another related danger involves the unintended disclosure of personal information. OBE demands sanctioned responses to a multitude of emotional and attitudinal questions concerning pertinent political, behavioral, and even religiously correct positions. The danger lies in the fact that, by means of such testing, children are given unintended information concerning themselves and their parents. Positions, opinions, and interests all become "fair game" for such testing. Richard M. Wolf in the JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT wrote (as cited in Eakman): "Great society" programs have heightened the demand on behavioral scientists...And there are recent indications that the involvement of public funds evokes a special concern for privacy...the concerns are heightened by the advent of computer technology...The danger lies in gradual erosion of the individual's right to decide to whom he wishes to disclose personal information. Peg Luksik, in her video presentation, "WHO CONTROLS THE CHILDREN?" documented the fact that such private information accumulation through testing has already been done by the federal government using OBE predecessor programs in the education of youth for a number of years. OBE will simply be far more effective and systematic in gathering such information from both the public as well as the private school sectors. CONCLUSION In the past, education was given the mandate to teach the "three R's". For many years, educators accomplished that great purpose admirably. Personality and values, however, were the sacred domain of family and church. Through the centuries, people were profoundly influenced by observing and trusting mentors who demonstrated quality in character and discernment. In the old model of private educational training, children were not made to fit a repetitious, "values clarified", "Pavlovian" animal training system. Instead, they were loved, nurtured, respected...and thus, educated. You know, folks, that "old fashioned Model T" is looking real good right now. If you would like more position papers on OBE, please write to: CRC-PIN BOX 733 ELM GROVE WI. 53122 Reprinted with permission from the Parents Information Network