Parent Information Network (P.I.N.) P.O. Box 733 Elm Grove, WI 53122 414-821-1873 _________________________________________________________________ OUTCOME BASED EDUCATION "THE SEVEN GOLDEN CITIES" Position Paper Volume 4 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 power and tactics of those who endorse the new reforms. THOSE DARING CONQUISTADORS Students of American history are introduced each year to the thought provoking stories of the "conquistadors". You remember them, don't you? They were the "rough-and-tumble" Spanish explorers of the sixteenth century who roamed the Americas looking for wealth and adventure for the Spanish empire. Their very name meant "conquerors". They include such men as Balboa who, we're told, "discovered the Pacific Ocean in 1513"..after the locals showed him where it was. They include Pizarro, the man who humbled the Inca tyranny...only to impose one of his own. But the most amazing of them all, perhaps, was Francisco Coronado. In February of 1540, he led a band of 336 soldiers off on a fantastic two-year expedition in search of the fabled "Seven Golden Cities of Cibola". The fabled cities of gold were said to be located in the deep recesses of the unexplored, Indian territory of "Cibola" (more popularly known as "Arizona"). Now, you must understand something. Coronado wasn't exactly the romantic adventurer. Prince Valiant he wasn't. What he was instead, was a Spanish government administrator of a new world frontier province. In other words, he was a bureaucrat. And like all bureaucrats, he desperately needed money to run his Spanish province. Having heard that Indians owned these cities of gold, he was, shall we say, "green with envy". They had it, and naturally he wanted it. Of course, being that he was the government (though not of "Cibola", but that detail didn't seem to bother him much), he felt he had a greater claim to that money. Governments always do. I'm sure there was talk of "the public interest" and the "common good". Maybe even "national security". But, whatever the talk, his government wanted that money. Hence, the soldiers. So, off he went on his grand adventure, believing in the cities of gold. Cities which he believed were to be annexed to the Spanish empire. Cities which he believed would bring him fame and glory. Cities which he believed would finance his new education program...ah, no, sorry! I can't blame OBE for this one. Well anyway, as you've probably guessed, he didn't find any cities. Not that there aren't any "cities of gold"; it's just that he didn't find them. That feat would be left to the United States government and some very powerful special interest groups. In fact, all Coronado found were the adobe huts of the Zuni Pueblo and the Grand Canyon...which, for all of its size, didn't yield him any revenue. So, for all of his effort, he returned discouraged and broke. Kermit the Frog was right: "It isn't easy being green." There is an amazing lesson to be gleaned from Coronado's adventure. When money is at stake, governments and their allied special interest groupswill be more than willing to pursue almost any fable...even if they must invent it themselves. And they will run to any "city of gold' to get it. That's a lesson which bears remembering. THE REAL CITIES OF GOLD In the June 7, 1993 issue of Forbes, an article appeared entitled "THE NATIONAL EXTORTION ASSOCIATION?". Authors Peter Brimelow and Leslie Spencer wrote in that article that America's most powerful trade union, the National Education Association, "plays very rough". Citing the 1981 Alpena, Michigan school system shutdown, the article noted the repeated refusal of the voters in that school district to increase local property taxes to meet teacher union demands. The result was that the school system was shut down. Says Brimelow and Spencer, "The blackmail worked: Alpena capitulated, along with several other Michigan districts threatened with shutdown." Alpena is not the only city to face such demands for its "gold". In March 1993 Keith Geiger, president of the N.E.A. teachers union, appeared at a rally in Kalkaska, Mich. His message was directed to the voters of that city who had also repeatedly rejected any more tax increases and was, as a result, closing its school year two months early. According to Forbes reporters," Geiger's message was implicit: Never mind the nonsense about teaching as a public trust; pay up or we'll shut you down." The same article proceeds with a very stinging indictment of the N.E.A.: The Kalkaska shutdown got nationwide publicity. But Forbes has learned that it was little more than a union-orchestrated stunt. Kalkaska's school budget was not out of line with that of other districts in the region. Its main problem, since teachers' compensation makes up about 65% of all school budget: a contract calling for 6% annual salary increases three years running. This is a poor rural area (average income: about $22,000), where teachers (average income: about $32,000) are already among the top earners. And the school system could easily have made cuts, for example, in support staff or busing. Or it could have followed established procedures for going into deficit. The shutdown expenses amounted to $1.1 million...But the union had made its point for other parents-taxpayers who might be tempted to trifle with it. (emphasis mine) In an interview with president Keith Geiger, Forbes reported that, according to Geiger, other Michigan school districts now face shutdowns, if their voters don't come up with the cash. It appears that Coronado gave up too soon. But, our children ARE learning the lessons of the conquistadors...one way or another. If, indeed, voters can be "muscled" so as to cough up tax increases against their will ("blackmail"?), what will people do in light of the OBE reform, which is exceptionally expensive...as Chicago and a growing number of communities are experiencing. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR Right now, over $170 billion dollars is being spent annually on the education of more that 40 millionstudents in both the elementary and secondary education levels. In addition, colleges and universities spend more than $100 billion annually with the lion's share of such expense coming from the government sectors-state, federal, or local. In other words, we the people are paying that tab too. As a result of such expenditures, education has become a vast empire. Unfortunately, when a nation creates such an internal "empire", it must be constantly sustained. The current battles over the "runaway budget" are a testimony to that fact. But there is another problem which embitters many and creates greater tension. As John C. Calhoun pointed out in the 19th century, such money creates a tension which divides the nation into "tax-payers and tax-eaters". The trick is to keep the tax-eaters from gobbling up the tax-payers. As it stands now, statistically, each taxpayer is "carrying" at least one tax-eater on his back. On the bright side, at least the tax-payer isn't gobbled up...yet. But he is still being taken for quite a ride. As the brilliant economist and social analyst Llewellyn Rockwell put it: To keep us from struggling too much, the government - from our earliest days - trains us to be good little citizens: to salute and say "Yes, sir!" when ordered to pay redistributionist taxes, instructed how to run our businesses, told how to lead our personal lives, or drafted for foreign wars. And part of the training is the painstakingly inculcated acceptance of the government as "we". "Are we spending too much on the space shuttle?" someone asked me recently. But "we" are not spending anything. The U.S. government is. The government is separate from us, and almost always opposed to our interests. We do not have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We have a government to the people. (emphasis mine) Nowhere is this truth more strikingly apparent than in the way the government schools (commonly called "public schools") are managed...with so little input by parents. Perhaps the real "we" ought to become alarmed when special interests groups like the N.E.A., so closely linked to government at all levels and to this new national educational reform movement, can push its agenda down the throats of individual school district voters, one city at a time. The tax-eaters are pushing tax increases, debt accumulation, increased powers to regulate and control, and this is called "progressive". A question comes to mind. What are "we" getting for our tax dollars? Universally, everyone is concerned about the decline in educational performance. The most widely known decline is in the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores. The decline has been gradual but relatively steady since 1963 with only a small upturn. The scores have never returned to the 1963 levels. In 1990, the average combined verbal-math SAT score was 900. This was just 10 points above the LOW of 1980. It is, of course, far below the 1963 level. 1991 saw the average verbal SAT score fall to an all-time low. Scores also declined on the Iowa Test of Educational Development as well as on the American Testing Program (ACT). In one of this nation's most powerful statewide educationalsystems, namely California, it was revealed that only 11% of all of the eighth-grade government school students could solve seventh-grade math problems. All of that money invested with an 11% return would be considered a sound investment anywhere else...except education. (And that's assuming that a seventh-grade level of performance is acceptable to the parents for their eighth-grade students!)1 Of course, educational deficiencies are not confined to poor mathematics performance. Almost 33% of American 17-year-olds do not know that Abraham Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. Another 30% could not locate Great Britain on a map. Almost 50% do not know who Josef Stalin was. A vast majority of high school graduates do not know who is responsible for the statement, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Many, when asked, said "yes", that that was found in the U.S. Constitution! Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, is a man who is renowned for his social and economic commentary. In his outstanding expose, INSIDE AMERICAN EDUCATION, he sheds further light on just how well our "education dollars" are being invested. He writes: Perhaps nothing so captures what is wrong with American schools as the results of an international study of 13-year-olds which found that Koreans ranked first in mathematics and Americans last. When asked if they thought they were "good at mathematics", only 23% percent of the Korean youngsters said "yes" - compared to 68% of American 13-year-olds. The American educational dogma that students should "feel good about themselves" was a success in its own terms - though not in any other terms. Sowell goes on to point out that "a higher percentage of Japanese twelfth-graders disliked mathematics than did their American counterparts" but scored much higher than the American students. It would appear, then, that many American students are little more than "confident incompetents", he concluded. Professor Diane Ravitch, an American education specialist, adds another twist to this already sad American "investment". Professor Ravitch reports that "professors complain about students who arrive at college with strong convictions but not enough knowledge to argue persuasively for their beliefs." The professor concluded: "Having opinions without knowledge is not of much value; not knowing the difference between them is a positive indicator of ignorance." "In short", writes Sowell, "it is not merely that Johnny can't read, or even that Johnny can't think. Johnny doesn't know what thinking is..." Yet, when confronted with such criticisms concerning the sad estate of America's government schools, the education establishment shifts the blame for its failure to perform. To do that, it has invented reasons to justify itself. Of course, self-justification is almost always odious because it must either accuse or excuse. So, few were surprised when N.E.A. executive Mary Hatwood Futrell made the (common) accusation, "The nation's students today are threatened only by the failure of policy makers to give education the money it deserves." So, it's back to the "cities of gold." Hum...Just how much money does it take to show kids where Britain is located? SELF-JUSTIFICATION: ACCUSING AND EXCUSING Perhaps the favorite "excuse" used by spokesmen and proponents of the education establishment is some rendition of the tune "we don't have enough money". Conquistadors have long since mastered that tune. Coronado played it well. The charge carries with it a powerful "guilt-trip". By turning the table on critics, guilt manipulation allows the educational establishment to shift the reasons for poor pupil performance to the taxpayer. The unsupported assumption here is that there is a correlation between "more money" and "better education". That assumption is, at best, shaky. It is, at worst, a lie. In overall per pupil education expenditure, the U.S. ranks near the top among all nations. Our children receive more expenditures per pupil than most Western European countries. Far more is spent in the U.S. per pupil than what is spent on students in Canada. American public education spends 50% more than is spent per pupil in Australia or Japan and more than twice the amount spent per pupil in New Zealand. Yet, U.S. student performance ranks at or near the bottom of the list when compared to these same countries, according to Lewis J. Perlman in the Hudson Institute Briefing Paper of May, 1990. On the national front, financial comparisons yield even less satisfactory explanations of student performance. In 1984, the state of Connecticut spent about $4000 per pupil. Vermont, which spent $3000 per pupil, saw its students perform better than Connecticut on student scores. Rhode Island spent about $4000 per pupil and had the lowest SAT scores of the three states. New York, which spent $5000 per pupil that year, saw its students perform just a tad better than Rhode Island. The prestigious Brookings Institution issued a report which drew this (now not surprising) conclusion: "When other relevant factors are taken into account, economic resources are unrelated to student achievement."2 CONCLUSION: WHAT TO DO? 1) Beware of guilt-manipulation. America's "cities of gold" have produced enough money already for the educational sector. "What is lacking is the educational system's ability to deliver results after it has been supplied with ample resources", writes Thomas Sowell. I agree. However, the American tax-payer is still being eaten alive by the ravenous tax-eaters of the government school elite...with a supporting cast of special interest groups. These groups are apparently sensing the weight of the arguments which expose their false excuses for failure. So, if the Forbes article is correct, they are resorting to force and the American taxpayer will be forced to "pay up or we'll shut you down". Americans cannot allow their districts to spend and tax forever. At some point "we" must vote "no"...even if it means a flight to private education. 2) Oppose any rationale which advocates the following proposals and positions which create great expense: "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. All of such proposals are expensive. They invariably de-emphasize academics among our student population which is simply not competing well internationally. Yet, being behavioristic in their emphasis, the children are taught to "feel good" about themselves and their performance...without any real reason academically for believing so. 3) 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 moreadministrative and teaching positions (jobs !). So, the new national reform 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. Incidentally, this will gradually "crowd" the family out of the child's schedule as a primary sphere of influence over the child. The school will then become the "family" (as former Secretary of Education, Lamar Alexander, actually advocates), and government sector personnel become "parents" of your children. Such full-time oversight of your children is a stated objective of the new national reforms, as advocated by the United States Government (and a number of states). Get a copy of the previous position paper "Doublespeak" in order to get a more complete picture of such reforms. 4) 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. 5) Learn to recognize the various programs, tactics and strategies being used by the educational establishment by sending for some of our resource material at P.I.N. Such resources include: a) PEG LUKSIK VIDEO- "WHO CONTROLS OUR CHILDREN?" This video identifies what OBE really is and how it is being pushed by the education establishment. b) LUKSIK LIVE- "OBE:CHAOS OR CORRECTION?" This video identifies the fallacies of OBE, past follies of the education reforms and the expected negative results, especially in the field of academics, as well as social "engineering". c) EDUCATING FOR THE NEW WORLD ORDER by B.K. Eakman. This book is a comprehensive work which describes the education reform movement as a whole. d) INTRODUCTORY OBE PACKET-an item which explains what you can do now in your state and community. 6) Call and meet with your state assembly representative. Your local library will have all of that information. Send for our packet at P.I.N. which explains how to effectively approach your representative and senator. These issues must be handled AT THE STATE LEVEL, NOT SIMPLY AT THE LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD LEVEL! LOCAL SCHOOL BOARDS DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO SAY "NO!" TO THE STATE, BECAUSE THEY WILL LOSE THEIR FUNDING. 7) Write us as part of an ever expanding network of concerned parents. 1 Thomas Sowell, Inside American Education page 1-3 2 ibid., page 11 ________________________________________________________________ If you would like more information, or additional position papers on OBE, please write or call: Parent Information Network (P.I.N.) P.O. Box 733 Elm Grove, WI 53122 414-821-1873 _________________________________________________________________ [end]