ACADEMICS and ATTITUDES [Gifted Education]
Liberals Join Cry Against Outcome-Based Education
Wednesday, June 9, 1993
By Robert Holland
The old version of the Virginia department of Education's regulations
required a special "educational program" for gifted students.
The new version, adopted last February 25 to become effective July 1, 1994,
requires "special services" for gifted children.
Scratching out education and inserting
services typifies
the new thinking that "educating the intellect is a socially unworthy objective;
that the mission of schools is to be a service agency," said a professional
educator after analyzing all the changes line by line.
"This brings the liberal welfare-state concept into the schools."
And my source is...who? An activist emerging from last weekend's
Republican convention that nominated a solidly conservative ticket of George
Allen, Mike Farris, and Jim Gilmore, and that loudly cheered all calls to
squelch Outcome-Based Education in Virginia? Nope. A Pat Robertson
or Phylis Schlafly fan? Quite the contrary.
This particular Virginian opposed to the prevailing
Zeitgeist in
education is a liberal Democrat with a strong academic background -- Sylvia
Kraemer of Alexandria. And she is far from alone. Among the hundreds of
calls and letters of concern I have received about OBE -- a group-based approach
to learning that injects schools deeply into inculcation of "correct" attitudes
-- are many from liberals who oppose this quintessentially top/down brand of
reform as strongly as do conservatives.
Is this, then, an "extremist" concern? I think not. It is a
concern that candidates of all parties would be wise to address this fall.
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Sue Terry also has expressed
reservations about what the OBE gurus call a "paradigm shift." Let's hear
more.
Today, let's further compare the state's old and new approaches to education
of the gifted:
Old: General intellectual or specific academic ability were
criteria for selection into gifted programs.
New: "Intellectual aptitude(s)" -- a squishier concept --
becomes the gauge, not ability. In addition, evaluators may take "leadership"
into account -- however they may define it.
Old: IQ tests were used for screening and identification, as
well as creativity tests by trained personnel.
New: IQ testing is out but aptitude tests may be used --
although there is no requirement that a pupil score at any "prescribed level."
Also, such subjective measures as a teacher's "record of observation of
in-classroom behavior," assessment of appropriate student products, performance,
and/or portfolio," and "individual interview" are among the criteria for
qualification.
The new regs also add such requirements as these:
*That all tests be "sensitive to cultural, racial, and linguistic
differences," and that "identification procedures are constructed so that they
identify high potential/ability in all underserved culturally diverse, low
socioeconomic, and disabled populations."
*That there be a procedure "to identify and evaluate student outcomes based
on the initial and ongoing assessment of their cognitive and affective needs."
(Affective has to do with feelings and emotions -- the touchy feely stuff.)
*That there be "appropriately differentiated curricula" dealing with
affective/cognitive needs and encouraging "higher order thinking that leads to
generation of products and a focus on issues, themes, and ideas within and
across areas of study."
As Ms. Kraemer notes, that thick jargon injects OBE/Common Core of Learning
concepts directly into the regs. How interesting that is, given that the
State Board of Education approved the gifted regs in February but didn't adopt a
CCL framework until May 27.
This is just another example of how the state's agents persist in steadily
implementing OBE while claiming publicly that nothing is settled.
Truly gifted pupils are in a no-man's land under the new
system. Where is a place for a shy genius with a single-minded focus on
knowledge not easily translated into trendy "issues" or "themes"? By
dealing a blow to intelligence testing, the regs dilute gifted education in
accordance with egalitarian ideology. Indeed, with the new emphasis on
"services" and behavior modification, some families may clamor to take their
children out of gifted programs rather than to put them in.
What of those liberal OBE opponents? On paper, Sylvia Kraemer should
fit a conservative's profile of Alexandrians worthy of a good long sneer:
She works for the federal government's Senior Executive Service. She has a
PhD in history and has taught at politically correct Vasser.
But her education liberalism is of the muscular kind that recognizes the
value of tough courses, hard work, high standards -- the kind of equal
opportunity to realize one's individual potential that thoughtful conservatives
also support. As for her objection to schools getting into persona values,
she opposes any encroachment from the left or right (including compulsory
prayer): "The public school is the agent of the state .... We should
fear the power of the state; any political authority that has this power has the
power to coerce you."
Other liberals, like Marie Jardina, a Chesterfield resident and member of
Concerned Virginians for Academic Excellence, make a similar point: While
not totally opposed to OBE principles, Ms. Jardina fears that family privacy,
parental rights, and personal liberty are being eroded. In particular,
mandatory community service -- a feature of the new social studies curriculum in
Chesterfield -- is potentially a "violation of civil rights," she remarked.
Clearly, a part of the disinformation strategy of OBE's implementers is to
slam all opposition as right-wing and religiously motivated. That just
isn't so.