UNDERSTANDING THE IDEA OF OUTCOME BASED EDUCATION AND SCHOOL TO WORK   BY BARBARA MABERRY AND MARY MCGARR:

 

 Understanding the Idea of Outcome Based Education and School to Work

Written on June 12, 1997

Complicated, current and very important education issues are at hand. The way we educate our children is of utmost importance because education decisions have a direct impact on our lives socially, politically and economically. Recent education restructuring  efforts are being pursued by national, state and local government, and private entities which do away with traditional American education and replace it with “outcomes-driven education” tying students directly to the labor market.

“Outcomes-Based Education” is a phrase educators no longer use due to controversy. This educational concept is sometimes known as Outcomes-Driven Education, Performance-Based Education, Progressive Education, Reformed Education, Restructured Education, or Mastery Learning. As time passes, other names will be used to describe the educational process in order to cover up the real meaning of these words. The philosophy of OBE has existed for a many years. Certain components have been implemented piecemeal into America’s public education system over the past thirty years, and they include such things as block-scheduling and open concept (no walls separating) classes. Parents, however, have demanded this curriculum and pedagogy be removed in many areas citing student illiteracy in core academic knowledge. Students do not learn to read, write or spell proficiently, and they do not master basic mental skills in arithmetic such as addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, working with fractions and decimals, and doing long division. Parents in Texas have complained over recent years that their children are receiving less academic benefit during classroom time. Documentation shows the Texas Education Agency  (TEA) has been training school district personnel  in the concepts and implementation of OBE since 1992.  This particular approach to educating our youth is diametrically opposed to traditional American education.

Traditional American education is grounded in a solid foundation of grade-level/subject specific, factual core-knowledge (intensive teachings in English Language Arts/Reading, Arithmetic, Science, History, Geography and Civics, especially at the primary grades), which can be tested objectively. Concepts of healthy academic competition, individual responsibility, self-reliance and self-sufficiency have been fostered in the home and in schools since the inception of American public education, ensuring children opportunities for success in achieving their dreams in our democratic, free enterprise system. A large percentage of our students attend college; however only 20 to 25% are able to graduate for a number of reasons.

Transformational Outcomes-Based Education components (some of which are found in today’s schools) include, but are not limited to: 1)changing disciplined time demands such as altering class periods from 45-55 minute classes to 90 minute blocks (thereby decreasing the total amount of time (15 hours LESS per semester),  increasing the length of school days, and adding a few days intermittently to the school year  eventually achieving year round schools;  2) abolishing number grades (0 - 100) or letter grades (A - F), substituting subjective grading on attitudes, behavior and skills, with marks of ‘S’ or ‘N’; 3)replacing traditional high school diplomas with a Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) diploma or a Certificate of Advanced Mastery (CAM) diploma which are ‘skills certification’ documents; 4)replacing competitive honorable titles for individual high academic achievement, such as valedictorians and salutatorians, with  “effort” awards to make all students feel good about themselves; 5)eliminating ability grouping/tracking (basic, regular, advanced, honors’ and special education classes) and replacing it with heterogeneous grouping of children from every ability level, allowing  less capable students time to try and level out with help from the brighter students; 6)replacing subject specific curriculum with interdisciplinary curriculum - overlapping academic subjects areas, integrating social teachings and performance of certain skills; 7)replacing memorization/rote learning with application learning - such as using a calculator in math to find an answer circumventing the real knowledge of knowing how to add, multiply, work with decimals, etc.,  and reading diverse literary pieces before students acquire phonetic reading comprehension skills;  8)establishing file folder assessments, known as ‘portfolios’, which include much unnecessary information of a personal nature as well as examples of school work which follow students throughout their school careers, providing a tracking mechanism for government entities;  9)integrating ‘career pathways’ - job/career awareness and counseling - for ‘all’ students into regular classroom activities beginning in kindergarten - by grade seven, students can make vocational decisions and by grade nine, ‘all’ students must choose a workforce pathway  containing a paid work experience opportunity before graduation; and 10)distributing a ‘work card or smart card,' which in cooperation with business is coded with certification assessment that is valid among all education and training agencies and employers relating to whether the student ‘mastered’ the proper  attitudes, ability to work cooperatively with others, and skill development.  This card may or may not guarantee a job. If more skills are needed people will be forced to re-enter training schools. A seamless system of  “unending skill development” or “life long learning” is achieved.

The implementation of Transformational Outcomes-Based Education at this point in our nation’s history must be scrutinized because it appears to be a major part of an elaborate scheme to restructure our political, social and economic way of life through massive restructuring of our education system. Use of social psychology for behavior modification, the implementation of watered-down academic curriculum, and technical training produce the ‘outcomes’ of group think, interdependency, conformity, and skilled man-power. The aim of this type of education is to tie students directly to the labor market, i.e., factory and industry jobs. Another name for this type of education is “polytechnic," derived from the Soviet polytechnic school - combining education and vocational labor training.  Our country’s leaders appear to be copying exactly the failed systems of foreign nations. 

Within a week after Mr. Clinton was elected president, Hillary Clinton received a letter  (dated Nov. 11, 1992) from friend and fellow education reform strategist, Marc Tucker, president of  The National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), an untaxed, non-profit organization. Tucker’s excitement came from the realization that, “We (NCEE members) think the great opportunity you have is to remold the entire American system for resources development, almost all of the current components of which were put into place before World War II.” “We have taken a very large leap forward in terms of how to advance the agenda on which you and we have been working - a practical plan for putting all the major components of the system into place within four years, by the time Bill has to run again.”  The ‘system’ Tucker refers to dictates a national agenda for change and is outlined in NCEE’s report “A Human Resources Development Plan for the United States,” in which Tucker says, “The advent of the Clinton administration creates a unique opportunity for the country to develop a truly national system for the development of its human resources, second to none on the globe.”

NCEE established a ‘family of programs’ to carry out the agenda. These include: The New Standards Program, which creates a system of internationally benchmarked  standards for student performance “(the knowledge and skills that everyone is expected to hold in common),” and an assessment system to measure whether students are meeting standards; The National Alliance for Restructuring Education, a partnership of states, school districts, and organizations focuses on ensuring all students, except the most severely disabled, attain a CIM and puts the Certificate system into place; the Workforce Skills Program, which works to influence public policy and legislation regarding CIM, School -To-Work transition systems, a set of standards for certain low-level occupations to assure nation-wide compliance for worker certification,  occupational certificates, and a national labor market system; and the High Performance Management Program, focuses on how NCEE thinks schools and other government entities should be organized and …governed.  Also the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards seeks to provide national teaching certificates which subject teachers to the same questionable practices.  

Beginning in 1992, interlocking pieces of federal legislation on “education and the workforce,” including Goals 2000 Educate America Act, the School To Work Opportunities Act, all other federal legislation and the national boards created in their wake for restructured education, emanate from Mr. Tucker and his fellow change agents.

Goals 2000 Educate America Act and a Skills Standards board, which became law in 1994, set up a system for national occupational skills standards (‘outcomes’) and cover everything from prenatal health care to the composition of the family to ‘lifelong learning.’

The School-To-Work Opportunities Act, also passed into law, requires state proposals to integrate academic and career curricula, which prepares youth with “skills and knowledge,” producing skilled laborers needed in a “globally competitive economy.”

The federal government, following the recommendations of Tucker’s NCEE group, offers states financial incentives through federal block grants, promises of economic growth, and trains in a manipulative management technique (used to persuade state education departments, businesses, local school districts, parents and taxpayers that education restructuring is critical to prepare children for “real world needs”) ultimately “implementing new education, training and employment systems.”

Former Gov. Ann Richards, her appointed Commissioner of Education, Lionel "Skip" Meno, and the Texas Education Agency (TEA) formed alliances with the NCEE for workforce programs and standards development. The Richards Administration signed a contract  with the NCEE New Standards Project to participate in the NCEE program on standards and an assessment system to measure student progress.  The Fort Worth ISD has worked closely with the NCEE, and, according to NCEE documents, an NCEE staff member is housed there.

During Richards’ administration, Senate Bill 1, the rewrite of the Texas Education Code, was underway.  SB 1 was passed through the Legislature in 1995. Language in the legislation had been carefully crafted by Senator Bill Ratliff, Representative Paul Sadler, and others changing the former ‘guidelines’ for “Essential Elements” (meaning objective standards) to “standards” for “Knowledge and Skills needed in a globally competitive economy” (meaning subjective/non-academic ‘outcomes’) The new education code also requires that Texas align state goals with federal education standards which virtually destroys local control for elected officials in independent school districts.  Although Senate Bill 1 was touted as returning local control to districts, just the opposite occurred, and most of the “control” was turned over to state and local school administrators.  

Under George W. Bush, Dr. Michael Moses signed another contract with the NCEE. To date Texas has paid the NCEE $1.6 million dollars. According to a letter from the NCEE, forty-nine people from around the nation serve as board members on the  New Standards Program.  Included among the forty-nine NCEE board members are Texas Senator Bill Ratliff and Commissioner Mike Moses! 

More than eight million hard-earned federal and state tax dollars were spent by the TEA to bring in Marc Tucker, NCEE; William Spady, leader in the OBE movement and director of the High Success Network (a commercial enterprise with high volume sales of OBE materials to individual states); Willard (Bill) Daggett, director of the International Center for Leadership in Education, who markets for large fees the perception of ‘crisis’,  the ‘need’ for restructured education, the changes needed, and facilitates forums to achieve the appearance of consensus for change; National Standards board members; and other  ‘experts’ on transformational OBE. These education change agent ‘gurus’ were paid to ‘nurse’ Texas through the manipulative process of developing the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), a controversial set of K-12 education guidelines currently under review by the State Board of Education.

‘Staged’ public regional meetings called “Real World Forums” were held in Texas. Business people, citizens and educators  were duped into believing they were participating in a democratic process to decide Texas’ educational goals. However, participants say a controlling process, known as “Delphi”  was used by facilitators to create the appearance of consensus. The meetings were steered by facilitators asking questions such as “What should children know, be able to do, and be like when they graduate from high school or post-secondary schools to be prepared for ‘real world needs?’ ” The answers of course generally reflected ideas focusing on development of attitudes, behavior and work skills - “Knowledge and Skills.” Discussion of real academic core knowledge needs was side-stepped.

Next, hundreds of educators, business people and interested citizens were appointed to 15 subject area writing teams (from English language arts/reading, math, science and social studies to elective subjects such as fine arts and foreign languages). . The TEA, a tax supported entity, overstepped its bounds with overt intervention. Many writing team members complained they were unable to achieve good academic guidelines because the TEA facilitators used the same controlling techniques throughout the development process. Consequently, the current 2,000 page TEKS guidelines are integrated, affective mush that can never define academic rigor, and are groundwork for arbitration and interpretation. There is significant outcry from around the state, including a request from Gov. Bush,  for a “rewrite” of the TEKS. Writing team members and concerned citizens have reformatted and rewritten the English language arts/reading portion of the TEKS on their own time, using their own resources. Citizens and writing team members continue to work on other subject areas on their own time, using their own resources.  Their document is known at the Texas Alternative Draft Document (TADD).

The National Governor’s Education Summit was held March 1996 in Palisades, New York as a major turning point in American education. There, the governors promised to restructure their state school systems within two years.

Some states, including Texas, have already accepted federal block grants tying them to Goals 2000 national standards and the School-To-Work (STW) Opportunities Act. Texas is aligning its federal funds for education and training into a workforce development system. The state application was signed by Gov. Bush for a $61 million dollar grant over five years under the federal STW Act aligning STW, workforce and education standards. Business will be asked to set the “knowledge and skills,” prepare students through work experience, and assess and certify the student skills. When the five year ‘venture capital’ is depleted, the Texas grant states, “non federal support is mandated.” Some methods of financing the ‘system’ are: funds used now for education must be redirected to serve the goals of STW; local areas will be required to raise private funds by “partnerships through private and local government contributions;” contributions will come from business and/or citizens tax  “contributions”; experts will be hired to raise funds; or maybe there will be a state education tax shift, whereby, businesses will carry more of the tax load for educating youth toward the “skills and knowledge” the business world feels are “real world needs.” Gov. Bush’s recently released tax agenda incorporating an individual business tax reveals  such a shift.  The need to have business buy-in (through a business income tax) is required so that businesses can be coerced into supporting the mass hiring of children that is planned. 

The newly formed Texas Workforce Commission, which used to be the Texas Employment Commission, is responsible for administering the STW program. Twenty-eight School-To-Work systems will be deployed in Texas, Twenty regions have already drawn up plans including one in Harris County. These commissions have the power to establish job descriptions or ‘workforce standards.’ The workforce standards for many occupations are already appearing on the Internet. 

In the meantime, as is required in STW, business and education partnerships are forming all over the state. The Texas Scholars Program and Partners In Education are Texas initiatives that stem from the School-To-Work development process.  The coalition of businesses and schools are supposedly answering the call for help in preparing children for “real world needs”.  Advocates, including SBOE chair, Jack Christie, believe that 80% of our children do not need a traditional education or a college degree; therefore they must be relegated into a work skills track at a young age to prepare them for school-to-work transition. This plan allows approximately 20% of our student population to receive a more traditional, rigorous academic foundation to be prepared intellectually for real college-level studies.  A TEA report, “School-To-Work Transition, A Texas Perspective”, explains that students will acquire the knowledge and skills needed in factory and industry jobs such as:  “Eat and Drink Places, Furniture and Fixtures, Rubber and Plastics, Auto Repair, Special Trade Contractors, Health Services, ….” According to the “Central Texas Quality Workforce Planning Committee 1994-95 Guide To Quality Work Force Planning for Teachers and Counselors,”  occupational education and training programs are being tailored to meet the needs of “potential growth industries and those vital to the economic development….”  This approach constitutes a “market-driven” education system. Teachers will no longer teach; they will be retrained at huge tax payer expense to become facilitators, eventually being replaced by “distance learning.” Computers, telecommunications, and business mentors will take the place of teachers.

This type of restructuring of America’s education system mirrors models in China, Germany, Canada and the Soviet Union/Russia and puts our democracy and free enterprise system at risk. Interwoven institutions of big government, education and big business will ultimately result in the implementation of laws, new taxes and regulations on all business entities constituting a government controlled economy, which is documented as part of Marc Tucker’s  NCEE plan. Preparing children for “what they should know and be like” will achieve a utopian, stabilized world economy and one world order, according to advocates of this ‘outcomes’ scheme.

Parents are left out of the loop as the authorities directing the upbringing and education of their children. They are encouraged to be partners. Ideologically, in the minds of reformers “it takes a village to raise a child,” turning the upbringing of the young into the affair of all members of society. Realistically, when parents become “partners” and give up “half” of their child, the government, in cooperation with business and schools, will decide how and what the child will learn, what he will become as an adult and influence where he will live.  

However, vigilant citizens warned of impending national implications, and a number of prominent and active federal legislators, who voted, initially, in favor of the legislation mentioned above, withdrew support. In a letter sent to federal lawmakers, Representative Henry Hyde, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, warned, “President Clinton’s plan for a national workforce and skilled laborers is being achieved through the Goals 2000 Educate America Act, School to Work Opportunities Act, and Improving America’s Schools Act.” A later letter said, “School-To-Work” sounds good, but when carried to its logical extreme, it chooses careers for every American worker. Children’s careers will be chosen for them by the Workforce Development Boards and federal agencies ‘at the earliest age.’ ...We do want all Americans to have an opportunity to work, but forcing them to work where and how the federal agencies deem necessary is not the way to go.” Another legislator, Representative Mel Hancock wrote, “ that the National Education Association, in cooperation with the socialist segments of our government, is attempting to implement the Marxist theories of reeducating a society as part of a potential overthrow of our constitutional government - as advocated by Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin.”  Though they originally supported the Careers Bill (H.R. 1617, another interlocking piece of legislation) and Goals 2000, controversy stopped the Careers Bill and its Senate companion bill (Workforce Development Act - S. 143). NCEE, STW, Goals 2000 and related matters are causing controversy across the United States. A briefing was held Feb. 12 in Washington led by US congressmen and other federal and state lawmakers to discuss these concerns. 

Dr. Eugene Maxwell Boyce, professor of educational administration at the University of Georgia, stated in his 1983 study, “The Coming Revolution In Education,” that in authoritarian states, education is tied directly to jobs, and that children are not educated for jobs which do not exist. “No such direct, controlled relationship between education and jobs exists in democratic countries.”

Many Texas citizens have sacrificed time and resources to research and shed light on this impending national and state disaster. At the January State Board of Education Meeting, a citizen presented dramatic testimony and evidence that a model School-To-Work “Smart Card” has been produced and sent out to every school board by the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB), a tax supported entity, along with sample letters to school districts, employers, parents and students. In the Soviet Union the card was called “Party Card”.

At the March 4  SBOE meeting, SBOE member Richard Watson presented clear  evidence to prove the TEA drove the development process of the essential knowledge and skills following the NCEE guidelines, federal STW and Goals 2000 guidelines. Consequently,  the current vehicle (TEKS document) for use in Texas education is wrecked. A tremendous amount of repair is needed to get the vehicle out of its tangled mess and in shape for educators, parents, students, writers and publishers of curriculum materials, teacher training, and objective testing.

The political, social and economic freedom of our children and our grandchildren is being sacrificed on the altar of ignorance, passive compliance and elitism. THE PEOPLE never gave “informed consent” through federal or state democratic process to destroy our traditional education system. Academic core knowledge with study on the development and use of modern technology will again put our state and nation on top of the world. Our United States Congress, Gov. Bush, the Texas Legislature, TEA Commissioner Mike Moses, SBOE members, taxpayers, teachers, and parents must heed the warnings.  Wise men and women always listen.

We urge you to read the primary, original documents alluded to here.  We believe you will be able to see for yourself the truth of this matter.

Barbara Maberry,  Katy, Texas

Mary McGarr,  Katy, Texas