Outcome Based Education "Doublespeak" Position Paper 3 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. This paper will concentrate on the "social engineering" being accomplished in the name of "education". ORWELLIAN "DOUBLESPEAK" Alan Greenspan, currently the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, once made a statement which, perhaps, is representative of the way some in society use language as their private plaything to achieve their ends at the expense of others. Speaking at a meeting of the Economic Club of New York in 1988 he said, "I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I've said." As author William Lutz put it, "Mr. Greenspan's doublespeak doesn't seem to have hurt his career." "Doublespeak" is the term used to describe "a pretense to communication." Doublespeak abounds in our society. For example, there are no potholes in the streets of Tucson, Arizona. There are "pavement deficiencies". Recently, an automatic teller machine was not "robbed". No. All that occurred was simply an "unauthorized withdrawal." In some hospitals, patients do not "die". There is simply a "negative patient care outcome". When a National Airlines 727 airplane crashed in 1978 and National made an after-tax insurance benefit of $1.7 million, the explanation given in the annual report for the income was "the involuntary conversion of a 727." The act of smelling is now "organoleptic analysis". A neutron bomb is "a radiation enhancement device." Selling used cars is really selling "experienced" cars. In Pentagon jargon, there never is an "invasion". Such is really a "predawn vertical insertion. "Laying off workers is "initiating a career alternative enhancement program." And, in February of this year, a member of the Wisconsin State Education Goals Committee (meeting at Stevens Point, WI), responded to objections concerning the controversial OUTCOME BASED EDUCATION stated categorically (and with a straight face) that " outcome based education is not necessarily outcome based education". Apparently, Gov. Tommy Thompson, the Chairperson of that same Committee, missed that point when he spoke a few weeks later to the Milwaukee Metropolitan Civic Alliance that the educational reform was to be "outcome based education" (OBE). "Doublespeak" is the subversion of language to distort truth. George Orwell made reference to such subversion in his "Politics and the English Language". He wrote: "Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way." He described, not the deficiency of language, but its abuse. To dismiss "doublespeak" as the product of ignorance or the involuntary slip of the tongue is to invite peril. This famous author of 1984, whose graphic portrayal of "Big Brother" ( the benevolent sounding but utterly deceitful tyranny of socialistic government) was clear and direct. Doublespeak is language abused for power, deceit, manipulation, and thought control. Why is this obvious abuse of language so very effective? William Lutz, author of the national best-selling "expose" DOUBLESPEAK and professor at Rutgers University, explained the insidious purposes of this frightening means of communication: Doublespeak is language that pretends to communicate but really doesn't. It is language that makes the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, the unpleasant appear attractive or at least tolerable. Doublespeak is language that avoids or shifts responsibility, language that is at variance with its real or purported meaning. It is language that conceals or prevents thought; rather than extending thought, doublespeak limits it. (William Lutz, Doublespeak, p.1) Obviously, to conceal is to hide agendas and mask real intent. Most understand, at least in theory, this abuse of truth. However, to prevent thought is not well understood by many people, people who expect to be treated in a forthright and honest manner. "Preventing" thought simply means that the language is so engineered as to divert suspicion, circumvent real meaning, lessen impact, appease objection, relieve anxiety, soothe tension and even enlist support for issues which otherwise would be objectionable if presented honestly. MUST BE SOMETHING IN THE WATER All across the country, there is general confusion concerning the new national educational reform which was launched in 1989 at the Governors Conference on Education held in Wichita, Kansas. The proposed plan, which has created so much confusion, was one which involved establishing "outcome based education" goals for all students across the nation. Educational goals would be endorsed in school districts all across the country by the spring of 1993. It was further determined that the local communities would be "involved" in the goal-setting process and that "strategic plans" to implement consensus would be reached nationally for all children, especially those "at risk". Interestingly, Dr. Shirley McCune, Senior Director of Mid Continental Regional Educational Laboratory, stated that by implementing such a program "the next five years will be the most chaotic of our lives." Well, it is the spring of 1993 and that "chaos" is upon us!Everywhere, parents are struggling over the sudden surge in educational reform in their districts concerning "strategic planning", "outcomes" and "children at risk". Everywhere there is the bold assertion that the local community ALONE is in control of the destiny of its children. Frequently, there is denial that the controversial OBE is the proposed program for their local community. There are strenuous assertions from educrats that each community is simply pursuing its own goals without coercion or undue influence from "above". The impression many parents are getting is one which prevents them from suspecting consensus engineering or underlying agendas imbedded in the "goals" adopted for their communities. So, despite all the flurry of activity, communities, we are told, are simply exercising their real autonomy... and, amazingly, all at the same time. My, the wonder of it all. So much in the way of denials and assertions on the same topics. So much confusion and all at once... and concerning the same issues!Must be something in the water. (Of course, in Milwaukee of late that possibility must be considered). But... there is another possibility which involves "doublespeak". Before you judge, weigh the following issues carefully. DOUBLESPEAK: CHILDREN AT RISK What does the expression "children at risk" really mean? Traditionally, funding for children "at risk" was designed for students who were "handicapped or "disadvantaged". Of course, such funding created new jobs in the educational sector and gave new, vastly expanded powers to the state over the affairs of the family. Caring for children "at risk" certainly sounds compelling... until one finds that NOW, powerful influence brokers in the educational and sectors have defined "at risk" so broadly as to potentially include any student. Such children may be removed from the home IF social workers and courts should "discover" indicators which would place the child in this category. Study the "at risk" doublespeak in North Carolina's policy: Children and youth at risk in North Carolina are young people, who because of a wide range of personal, familial, social, or academic circumstances, may experience school failure or unwanted outcomes unless there is intervention to reduce the risk factors. Primary factors that may identify these children include the following: school performance at two or more years below grade level; CAT scores below the 25th percentile; academic failure; non promotion (being older than classmates); truancy; substance abuse; delinquency; disinterest in school; low self-esteem; learning disabilities; physical or mental health problems; physical or sexual abuse; pregnancy; unstable home environment/ family trauma; family income at or below the poverty level; negative parental attitudes toward school; low parental educational attainment; frustration of unchallenged giftedness and unrecognized talent, and limited English proficiency. Since many states are developing policies similar to that of North Carolina, a few questions are in order. Just exactly what constitutes an "emotional handicap"? Do not many children exhibit some temporary "low self esteem" from time to time? How will the school define "unstable home environments and family trauma"? Surely, families periodically face trauma due to prolonged illness of a member, death in the family, job loss, financial reversals, etc. This latter category is particularly cruel, because the family may face trauma only to then face a government service worker who believes it to be in the best interest of the children now "at risk" to be removed... OR, at the very least, the family should be subject to constant scrutiny from that time forward. In other words, because of trauma, a family would now report to a government agent regularly just as criminals report to probation officers. Consider the fact that, currently in forty states, there is the Parent As Teacher program (PAT) which assumes jurisdiction over children who fit their state's definition of "children at risk". State designated "parent-educators" (not to be confused with "parents" --doublespeak again!), are given authority to monitor a home many times per year if the child is defined as "at risk". Bettina Dobbs, R.N., M.S., former consultant to the U.S. Department of Health and president of Guardians of Education for Maine described this program: It will result in state control of the children and reduce parents to the status of breeders and supervised custodians. A "parent-educator " bonds herself to a family through home visits or school visits. This is to help parents feel more comfortable about leaving their child(ren) at the center. Both parents and children are evaluated under the guise of educational screening. The child is given a personal computer code number by which he can be tracked the rest of his life. There are twelve computer code definitions which label the child "at risk." Since the expectation is that every child will be found "mentally ill", there is no code for normal. In Missouri, families are rated in the PAT program according to "at risk" descriptions listed in the "Revised Missouri Risk Factor Form", revised edition, copyright 1990 which includes the following: - premature babies, emergency delivery or birth trauma - a child's slow growth, poor appetite or frequent illness - inability of parent to cope with inappropriate child behavior, including spanking as exclusive form of discipline, and inconsistency - a parent who is ill, tired, depressed, handicapped, injured or appears to be of low level intelligence - undue spoiling on the part of the parent - stress on the family such as a parent that travels frequently, three children under the age of three, divorce, separation, prolonged illness, loss of job, low level of income, moving to a new home With such descriptions in hand, is it any wonder that the National Education Association reports to the media that America is a nation with a "spiraling epidemic" of students "at risk" and counsels the nation's leaders to adopt programs which give schools "watchdog " powers in their communities? One must admire the subtlety of doublespeak in its frightening ability to disarm the public at large into accepting as true, things which are preposterous. George Orwell was right. The English language is found to be in a bad way... And "Big Brother" loves to have it so. One wonders if "truancy" will AGAIN be the new attack upon home schoolers as it has been in the past. Ironically, Wisconsin's legislature is currently considering a new "truancy" law which can be interpreted broadly along such lines. But will it? That probably depends upon how successfully doublespeak really works with Wisconsinites. SOCIAL ENGINEERING: A CONCERTED PLAN In a recent article in the Milwaukee Journal, Patrick J. Madden, Milwaukee County circuit court judge lamented the general deterioration of values and morality. However, with 35 years experience in government, he sees that which most parents simply do not suspect. He writes: The real tragedy is the education of our children. Abandoning traditional concepts of teaching, we have allowed educational theorists who seemingly are more concerned with social engineering than with education to take over the formation of our children. True teachers, of which there are many, and the parents of the children who are being subjected to this experimentation should be up in arms at what is going on. Some are, but not enough. Between the example we give young people with popular culture and the kind of education we provide, is it any wonder that the last 30 years have witnessed the escalation of senseless violent crimes and general disrespect for others by children. How many realize that education, far from being the means of leading children out of ignorance, is actually a program for "social" (societal/governmentally endorsed values) "engineering" (the design, construction, and supervision of a project or program)?Judge Madden recognizes that there is an approach to education which is radically different from what most of us believe education to be. Is it possible that all of the sudden concern for "outcomes", district "goals", and "strategic planning", is not really the result of local concern but is an engineered result of someone's predetermined agenda? After all, these issues were not on the minds of most people even as late as last fall and yet are, quite literally, the concerns of many confused parents... everywhere. THOSE "OUTCOMES" AGAIN All of which brings us to the point of our current state of confusion... "outcomes". Over and over again the point is made that local communities "determine for themselves" the goals which they want for their children. The impression is given that each community is "master of its fate." However, nothing could be further from the truth. In the "OHIO 2000 DISCUSSION GUIDE", page 9, there is an interesting statement which reads: What schools in Ohio need are local campaigns that get the community involved in education reform. For this reason, every Ohio community is encouraged to adopt the national education goals and become an Ohio 2000 community. This statement clearly positions the federal goals announced in the "AMERICA 2000" program (hence, the name "Ohio 2000") as the standard for educational reform throughout the country. If the federal "goals" are the standard, then one should expect to find school programs reflecting a consistency, not independent autonomy. Not only is there consistency in the adopted goals, even the wording is consistent. If so, any implication that a community will be able to retain true decision-making ( which includes the right to disagree) in its district goals is "doublespeak". For example, Ohio goal #5 reads: By the year 2000, every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. By comparison, Wisconsin goals state: Students possess and exercise the knowledge and processes necessary for full participation in the family, civic, economic, and cultural life of a complex interdependent, global society. Ohio goal #6 reads as follows: By the year 2000, every school in America will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning. Two separate Wisconsin goals incorporate what Ohio simply combined as one: Schools will provide an environment in which students are actively engaged in authentic learning. Society will promote drug- and violence-free schools and communities. A Missouri goal states: By the end of this decade, Missouri should require an outcome-based instructional program designed to assure success for every student.... We must focus on outcomes and accountability for individual students and teachers, as well as for schools and school districts. Wisconsin stated this as its goal: The primary mission of schools will include a focus on outcomes to insure that learning occurs in meaningful context. These are but a few examples of the consistent wording of the MANY goal/outcome formulations across the country. One of the problems which faces critics of OBE is the fact that it plays the part of the chameleon well. Very often, proponents of "goals" point to the "fact" that they are not using "outcome based education" at all. Parents and businessmen are told that the schools are adopting "other strategies". Descriptive titles replace OBE IN NAME ONLY. They include the following: "exit outcomes", "significant outcomes", "restructuring", "learner outcomes", "exit behaviors", "authentic assessment", "mastery", "heterogeneous groupings", "high expectations", "holistic education", "whole language focus in reading", "cooperative learning", "whole-child development", "instructional strategies", "consensus", "lifelong learning", "success for all students", "performance outcomes", "results based education", "competencies", "performance demonstrations", "demonstrations of mastery", "assessing outcomes" and others. Thus, other names are used instead of OBE but the methodologies, assessment tests, and adopted goals remain the same or very similar. CONCLUSION: WHAT TO DO? 1) Beware of the use of "doublespeak", the language which conceals this extraordinary social engineering program. Unfortunately, there are many fine people endorsing these programs who simply do not know what the educational jargon really means. Remember the statement by William Lutz. "Doublespeak" is designed to PREVENT thought. It is designed to prevent objective examination. Phrases like "children at risk" and "outcomes" need full exposure. Parents simply cannot presume to believe what they are told. 2) Note carefully the content of the goals. Invariably, they will emphasize "politically correct" positions, global citizenship, world economies, collectivistic behavior and values, multicultural expression and acceptance, environmental objectives, behavioristic attitudes and values clarification. 3) Weigh carefully the rationale used to advocate proposed outcomes, such as "children at risk"; "need to train students to compete in a global economy"; any need for "restructuring"; any assertion of the "school as family" or anyone other than the parent as "parent-teacher"; the need for local "consensus"; any need or timeline which emphasizes the year 2000; the possibility of eliminating "failure"; the need to train children to appreciate multicultural diversity and values; the need to train children to exhibit "teamwork"; the need to prepare children for school (this is used to justify the expansion of kindergarten and daycare programs); the need to prepare children to make the transition from school to work. 4) Oppose the expansion of the school day or year. Educational "engineers" who developed these programs long ago realized that to expand the school day was to create the necessity of more administrative and teaching positions (jobs !). So, the goal is to expand the school time from 6 A.M. to 6 P.M., 12 hours a day, 5 days a week, 12 months a year. Such time increases will be advocated in increments, gradually "crowding " the family out of the child's schedule as a primary sphere of influence over the child. The school then becomes the "family" (as former Secretary of Education, Lamar Alexander actually advocates) and government sector personnel become "parents". 5) Recognize that OBE type programs are not just costly. They are extraordinarily expensive! Chicago spent $7.5 million just to begin the implementation of a five year program... which failed and was abandoned. The real heartache was the terrible drop in student performance on standardized tests. Top dollar was paid to implement a system which caused student performance to fall. In any event, watch out for the increased local tax burdens. One of the main reasons for the doublespeak emphasis of "local control", "local consensus", "each district's own outcomes" is so that by shifting the authority away from the state to the local school districts, OBE proponents... "can claim that the spending changes result from locally established priorities and are not part of a growing and 'bloated" bureaucracy. (Lawrence Picus, USING INCENTIVES TO STIMULATE IMPROVED SCHOOL PERFORMANCE: AN ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES, p.5.) 6) Write us as part of an ever expanding network of concerned parents: CRC-PIN BOX 733 ELM GROVE WI. 53122 Reprinted with permission from the Parents Information Network