Parent Information Network (P.I.N.)
P.O. Box 733
Elm Grove, WI 53122

414-821-1873
_________________________________________________________________

OUTCOME BASED EDUCATION

"LONGING" FOR THE OLD MODEL T

Position Paper Volume 2                                         
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. 
Future reports will focus upon such topics as the enormous costs
of implementing OBE, the documented failures of such programs
around the country, and the "shadowy" as well as dangerous
origins of this new federal power grab.

Dr. William Spady of Santa Cruz, CA, is the Director of the
High-Success Program on Outcome-Based Education and the OBE
proponent who coined the name.  Not too long ago, he predicted
that soon America's schools would be very different from what
most of us have ever known.  Apparently, current structuring,
built upon the framework of grades, subjects, class rank,
seat-time and semesters would be relegated to the junkyard of a
bygone era.  So as to make his point perfectly clear, he
stressed the necessity for change.  "If you want to
restructure," he said, " you can't put another coat on the old
Model T."

As a part-time "Spady-watcher", I have long since learned that
Spady-quotes invariably link two genetic strains:  graphic
edu-babble with a surprise twist.  Sort of like reading
hieroglyph with an O'Henry ending.  I'm still reeling from his
analysis as to why so many American children are failing in
today's schools.  To put it in his terms, children fail
"...because we make it available."

THE "NEED" FOR RESTRUCTURING	

So, the need is for "restructuring", and OBE is the proposed 
solution.  However, it doesn't take too much "reading between 
the lines" to realize that Dr. Spady wants to eliminate the 
"Model T" while building his new educational model.  By "Model T", 
he is referring to previous educational approaches.  Of course, 
the true "Model T" approach which educators like Spady have long 
since abandoned is that which advocated fixed absolutes, 
decentralized private education, respected Judeo-Christian values, 
emphasized "graces" and gifts in child development, and honored 
family government and privacy.

Since Dr. Spady and others are building a new model for
education, one must ask the question, "why build anything" so
new, as many OBE proponents purport it to be?  An examination of
purpose is appropriate at this point and, not surprisingly, Dr.
Spady serves us well.  He makes the following "Assumption
Regarding the Future":

Despite the historical trend toward intellectual enlightenment
and cultural pluralism, there has been a major rise in
religious and political orthodoxy, intolerance, fundamentalism, 
and conservatism with which young people will have to be prepared 
to deal.

Since few people would ever consider their own opinions
intolerant one is forced to inquire as to what constitutes
"religious and political orthodoxy" in Dr. Spady's view.  It is
very clear that OBE is designed to arm the mass of public school
students with politically correct attitudes toward certain
apparentproblem groups.  The influence of such groups will be
neutralized by this well-trained mass of government school
students.  That this is one major purpose of OBE was revealed in
the Wisconsin WASB Convention on January 20, 1993.  One of the
members of the State Educational Goals committee stated: 

We have to promote positive public relations to counteract the
fundamentalists and taxpayers negative public relations efforts.

It would appear from this statement that just about everyone in
Wisconsin has been included in the "old Model T" ...and has been
"riding" in it a bit too long.  An interesting testimony
concerning this statement and Dr. Spady's similar emphasis
(noted above) was presented to that very committee publicly on
February 9,1993 by Ted Mueller, who is the president of the
Independent School Board Members of Wisconsin.  His warning
bears special attention:

Notice the word "fundamentalist" appears in both of these
statements.  This is a classic example of OBE in action. 
This individual, on the state goals committee, has set
outcomes for what they have determined to be 'positive' (the
support of the state educational goals without question), has
assessed certain groups as having a politically incorrect
attitude that does not meet those outcomes ( fundamentalists and
taxpayers), and then suggests a public relations campaign ...
to bring them into conformity.  These are the tactics the
state's children will be subjected to under the OBE philosophy.

The "need" for educational restructuring appears to be none
other than the "need" for coerced political and religious
conformity.  Such an accusation is hardly overstating the issue.
Port Lavaca, Texas instituted its OBE program and immediately
drew intense opposition for its obvious political agenda and
orientation.  Said one articulate opponent of OBE:

Every OBE program that I am aware of, regardless of who
promotes it, is not based on an academic agenda; it is based
on a political agenda... [The outcomes] are all designed to
promote radical environmentalism, socialism and a global
one-world government...[with] 	...an atheistic, agnostic or New
Age religious orientation.
                                                   
UNIVERSALIZING ERROR

What is the ONLY entity on the face of the earth which is able
to "universalize" error?  Look for the answer in that
institution which society invests with the fearful power to
sanction...the power of the sword.  Government alone is feared 
in this respect.  By comparison, all other institutions and 
"culture-carriers" merely express their opinions... albeit, perhaps, 
quite persuasively.  But government has the power to exert its will
through laws, police, courts, fines, and imprisonment.  As such,
it is feared; therefore it is obeyed.  Our American heritage
recognized this fundamental principle and tied government "...to
the chains of the Constitution," as Thomas Jefferson put it. 
George Washington expressed this sentiment, "Like fire,
government is, at best, a dangerousservant and, at worst, a
fearful master."

This age-old truth must be clearly understood by those who love
peace and liberty.  "He who rules, sanctions."  "Rule" is never
an option with government; the citizen must obey... or he must
face the badge and the gun. 

The ability to mandate "outcomes" therefore is a fearful power
of unrestrained government.  Dictating mass opinion through
government education undermines independent thinking, freedom of
speech and privacy of conduct and belief.  In addition, it
presents the possibility of passing on coerced error "en masse".

However, its potential wrongdoing is greatly overshadowed by
the certainty of another pitfall.  Renowned Christian scholar,
J.Gresham Machen, in combating a far lesser national educational
reform threat in 1925, observed:

But the most serious fault of this program for "character
building" is that it makes morality a product of experience,
that it finds the norm of right conduct in the determination of
that 'which is justified by the experience of multitudes of
worthy citizens who have been Uncle Sam's boys and girls since
the foundation of the nation.' That is wrong...because it bases
morality upon...experience...Moral standards were powerful
only when they were invested with an unearthly glory...The
truth is that decency cannot be produced without principle.  It
is useless to try to keep back the raging sea of passion with
the mud-embankments of an appeal to experience.  Instead,
there will have to be recourse again, despite the props
afforded by the materialistic paternalism of the modern State,
to the stern, solid, masonry of the law of God.  An authority
which is man-made can never secure the reverence of man...

In other words, since his experience is ever changing, man can
never be sure that he has "arrived" at truth unless he has a
standard of fixed absolutes to guide him.  He will always
"strive" without the ASSURANCE of certainty.  When a nation does
this through its government schools' appeal to national dignity
and patriotism the result will be universal error.  Taking this
position in 1925, Machen said, "We blamed Germany for this kind
of thing...yet now we advocate...the same (method)."  National,
universal error is a certainty, given experience as the
ever-changing standard AND sanctioned mandates as a means. 

OBE, as a system, begins with a list of mandated,
state-approved "outcomes".  Although such "outcomes" are alleged
to be the creation of statewide parent-teacher cooperative
groups and consensus (as if that should make a difference for
YOU who had no input in such committees), it is repeatedly found
that the "outcomes" or goals of testing and graduation are
generally the same as those adopted throughout the entire country.  
Connecticut and Pennsylvania goals were at one point "word-for-word 
the same", according to OBE expert (though not advocate) Peg Luksik 
of Pennsylvania.  This, despite the fact that the goals were
supposed to have been determinedindependently by parents and
teachers in those states. How that may be accomplished through
unsuspecting individuals is an application of what may be called
"consensus-engineering". Such is beyond the scope of this study.
However, the fact remains that the uniformity of the outcomes
is a function of the U.S. Departments of Education, Labor, and
Commerce.  With such "heavy-hitters" behind it, is it any wonder
that failure to "demonstrate" the approved outcomes
(environmentalist attitudes, multi-cultural expression, human
growth and development, sexual alternatives, collectivist
values) will be sanctioned to the point that diplomas will be
denied to those who do not conform?  Incidentally, employers
will be required to seek resumes FROM SCHOOLS for job
applicants.  All students will be tracked from school to future
jobs.  One wonders how this will impact "non-conformist"
students and families.  Such sanctions are a terrible threat to
the freedoms which this nation has espoused historically.

One should ask, how will outcomes be implemented for each
student?  At the risk of repeating an earlier position paper, it
might be good to review the OBE approach to each student.  The
system will be implemented through a thorough assessment
(testing) program.  The student will be given "pre-tests" to
determine information on his/her current attitudes on a wide
variety of subjects (which would very often reflect the opinions
of their parents, especially at the elementary level). 
Afterwards, "learning nuggets" will be served up to them to
instruct them as to the correct responses to the issues
presented.  Then the assessment tests will determine to see if
they understand the correct responses.  So far, this procedure
still falls within the parameters of past methodology (waiving
for a moment considerations of the nature of the material
itself).  However, what happens next is a virtual "revolution"
in educational approach.

If the student fails to give the appropriate responses to the
questions, he is then REMEDIATED.  That simply means that he
will be given further "learning nuggets" on the same type of
issue and re-tested until he learns to give the correct
response.  He will be refused graduation to the next learning
level until he gives the correct response through remediation
testing (called "reassessment").  In short, he must give the
state mandated "correct" answer to all outcomes, which answer
may often involve a problem of conscience or conflict with
positions espoused in the home and church.  Again, if a student
does not answer correctly, he cannot advance.  By force of law,
he must be "remediated", i.e., he goes through the
"learning-testing" loop again and again until he "gets it".  In
any other context this would simply be called what it really
is... "brainwashing".

SANCTIONS, ENTRAPMENT AND THE INVASION OF PRIVACY

The May 7, 1990 edition of Parade magazine carried an article
entitled "Should You Tell ALL?"  In the article, Bernard Gavzer
wrote about an employee test which attempted to predict whether
an applicant might be trustworthy in character.  Some of the
questions involved sexual as well as very personalized issues.

An applicant for a position at  a local store questioned the
legitimacy of such testing.  Though hired, he was fired ten days
later.  His case became the key focus in a class-action suit
involving these types of personality testing.

Eakman documents the kind of questioning which was involved in
the book EDUCATING FOR THE NEW WORLD ORDER.

*	True or False:

*	I have insecurities and feelings of inferiority.

*	It would be nice to have enough money to never have to work
        again.

*	As a child, there were times I hated my mother and father.

*	How often do you insist on having things your way?

*	How often are you embarrassed?

*	Have you ever done anything you feel guilty about?

If one should guess wrong on any of the questions, one can be
denied a means of making a living.  Harvard law professor Alan
M. Dershowitz stated for the Parade article: 

On the basis of such a test...you can be penalized simply
because a test says you may have a proclivity to be dishonest.
In other words, you are guilty without a trial....Truly honest
people, reveal proclivities, [and] have to fail the test.
(Reference Eakman's EDUCATING FOR THE NEW WORLD ORDER).

Such an invasion of privacy has already been ruled upon in the
courts.  In the case of KAMOWITZ vs. the DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL
HEALTH (1973), precedent was set with the rights of individuals
in a "captive setting" with regard to their personal thoughts
and feelings.  The court stated: 

Intrusion into one's intellect when one is involuntarily
detained and subject to the control of 	institutional
authorities, is an intrusion into one's protected right of
privacy.  If one is not protected in his thoughts, behavior,
personality, and identity then the right of privacy becomes
meaningless.

Unfortunately, as Eakman points out, educational institutions
do hold children "captive", legally speaking, but oddly, are
exempted from the force of "captive-environment protection". 
Children who are subjected to "personality altering
methodologies in a captive setting" have no protection from the
procedures.  Their right to privacy is automatically violated
and they are required to comply...or else.

Attorneys Charles W. Sherrer and Ronald A. Roston, in the 1971
Spring issue of the FEDERAL BAR JOURNAL explained the problem
more succinctly (as cited by Eakman):

..any personality test constitutes an invasion of privacy, as
the person tested rarely understands the implications of all
the questions... or the significance of the responses.  

The tests may not only reveal the thoughts and feelings which
the student desires to 	withhold from others but those he is
trying to keep from his own consciousness.

CRITICS OF OBE HAVE REPEATEDLY CHARGED THAT OBE MOST DEFINITELY
FALLS INTO THIS CATEGORY OF PERSONALITY TESTING.

Another related danger involves the unintended disclosure of
personal information.  OBE demands sanctioned responses to a
multitude of emotional and attitudinal questions concerning
pertinent political, behavioral, and even religiously correct
positions. The danger lies in the fact that, by means of such
testing, children give unintended information concerning
themselves and their parents.  Positions, opinions, and
interests all become "fair game" for such testing. 

Richard M. Wolf in the JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT once
wrote (as cited in Eakman):

"Great society" programs...heightened the demand on behavioral
scientists...And there are recent indications that the
involvement of public funds evokes a special concern for
privacy...the concerns are heightened by the advent of
computer technology...The danger lies in gradual erosion of
the individual's right to decide to whom he wishes to disclose
personal information.

Peg Luksik, in her video presentation, "WHO CONTROLS THE
CHILDREN?" documented the fact that such private information
accumulation through testing has already been done by the
federal government using OBE predecessor programs in the
education of youth for a number of years.  OBE will simply be
far more effective and systematic in gathering such information
from both the public as well as the private school sectors.

CONCLUSION

In the past, education was given the mandate to teach the
"three R's".  For many years, educators accomplished that great
purpose admirably.  Personality and values, however, were the
sacred domain of family and church.  Through the centuries,
people were profoundly influenced by observing and trusting
mentors who  demonstrated quality in character and discernment. 
In the old model of private educational training, children were
not made to fit a repetitious, "values clarified", "Pavlovian"
animal training system. Instead, they were loved, nurtured,
respected...and thus, educated.  You know, folks, that "old
fashioned Model T" is looking real good right now.

_________________________________________________________________

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]

                                                                
