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