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

414-821-1873
_________________________________________________________________

OUTCOME BASED EDUCATION

"DOUBLESPEAK"

Position Paper Volume 3                                         
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 "social engineering" being
accomplished in the name of "education".

ORWELLIAN "DOUBLESPEAK"

Alan Greenspan, currently the chairman of the Federal Reserve
Board, once made a statement which, perhaps, is representative
of the way some in society use language as their private
plaything to achieve their ends at the expense of others. 
Speaking at a meeting of the Economic Club of New York in 1988
he said, "I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be
particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I've
said."  As author William Lutz put it, "Mr. Greenspan's
doublespeak doesn't seem to have hurt his career." 

"Doublespeak" is the term used to describe "a pretense to
communication."  Doublespeak abounds in our society.  For
example, there are no potholes in the streets of Tucson,
Arizona.  There are "pavement deficiencies".  Recently, an
automatic teller machine was not "robbed".  No.  All that
occurred was simply an "unauthorized withdrawal."  In some
hospitals, patients do not "die".  There is simply a "negative
patient care outcome".  When a National Airlines 727 airplane
crashed in 1978 and National made an after-tax insurance benefit
of $1.7 million, the explanation given in the annual report for
the income was "the involuntary conversion of a 727."  The act
of smelling is now "organoleptic analysis".  A neutron bomb is
"a radiation enhancement device."  Selling used cars is really
selling "experienced" cars.  In Pentagon jargon, there never is
an "invasion".  Such is really a "predawn vertical insertion.
"Laying off workers is "initiating a career alternative
enhancement program."  And, in February of this year, a member
of the Wisconsin State Education Goals Committee (meeting at
Stevens Point, WI), responded to objections concerning the
controversial OUTCOME BASED EDUCATION stated categorically (and
with a straight face)that " outcome based education is not
necessarily outcome based education".  Apparently, Gov. Tommy
Thompson, the Chairperson of that same Committee, missed that
point when he spoke a few weeks later to the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Civic Alliance that the educational reform was to
be "outcome based education" (OBE).

"Doublespeak" is the subversion of language to distort truth. 
George Orwell made reference to such subversion in his "Politics
and the English Language".  He wrote: "Most people who bother
with the matter at all would admit that the English language is
in a bad way."  He described, not the deficiency of language,
but its abuse.  To dismiss "doublespeak" as the product of
ignorance or the involuntary slip of the tongue is to invite
peril.  This famous author of 1984, whose graphic portrayal of
"Big Brother" ( the benevolent sounding but utterly deceitful
tyranny of socialistic government) was clear and direct.
Doublespeak is language abused for power, deceit, manipulation,
and thought control.

Why is this obvious abuse of language so very effective? 
William Lutz, author of the national best-selling "expose"
DOUBLESPEAK and professor at Rutgers University, explained the
insidious purposes of this frightening means of communication:

Doublespeak is language that pretends to communicate but really
doesn't.  It is language that makes the bad seem good, the
negative appear positive, the unpleasant appear attractive or
at least tolerable.  Doublespeak is language that avoids or
shifts responsibility, language that is at variance with its
real or purported meaning.  It is language that conceals or
prevents thought; rather than extending thought, doublespeak
limits it. (William Lutz, Doublespeak, p.1)

Obviously, to conceal is to hide agendas and mask real intent. 
Most understand, at least in theory, this abuse of truth. 
However, to prevent thought is not well understood by many
people, people who expect to be treated in a forthright and
honest manner.  "Preventing" thought simply means that the
language is so engineered as to divert suspicion, circumvent
real meaning, lessen impact, appease objection, relieve anxiety,
soothe tension and evenenlist support for issues which otherwise
would be objectionable if presented honestly. 

MUST BE SOMETHING IN THE WATER	

All across the country, there is general confusion concerning
the new national educational reform which was launched in 1989
at the Governors Conference on Education held in Wichita,
Kansas.  The proposed plan, which has created so much confusion,
was one which involved establishing "outcome based education"
goals for all students across the nation.  Educational goals
would be endorsed in school districts all across the country by
the spring of 1993.  It was further determined that the local 
communities would be "involved" in the goal-setting process and
that "strategic plans" to implement consensus would be reached
nationally for all children, especially those "at risk". 
Interestingly, Dr. Shirley McCune, Senior Director of Mid
Continental Regional Educational Laboratory, stated that by
implementing such a program "the next five years will be the
most chaotic of our lives."

Well, it is the spring of 1993 and that "chaos" is upon
us!Everywhere, parents are struggling over the sudden surge in
educational reform in their districts concerning "strategic
planning", "outcomes" and "children at risk".  Everywhere there
is the bold assertion that the local community ALONE is in
control of the destiny of its children.  Frequently, there is
denial that the controversial OBE is the proposed program for 
their local community.  There are strenuous assertions from 
educrats that each community is simply pursuing its own goals 
without coercion or undue influence from "above".  The impression 
many parents are getting is one which prevents them from suspecting 
consensus engineering or underlying agendas imbedded in the "goals"
adopted for their communities.  So, despite all the flurry of
activity, communities, we are told, are simply exercising their
real autonomy... and, amazingly, all at the same time.  My, the
wonder of it all.  So much in the way of denials and assertions
on the same topics.  So much confusion and all at once... and
concerning the same issues!Must be something in the water.  (Of
course, in Milwaukee of late that possibility must be
considered).  But... there is another possibility which involves
"doublespeak".  Before you judge,weigh the following issues
carefully.

DOUBLESPEAK: CHILDREN AT RISK

What does the expression "children at risk" really mean? 
Traditionally, funding for children "at risk" was designed for
students who were "handicapped or "disadvantaged".  Of course,
such funding created new jobs in the educational sector and gave
new, vastly expanded powers to the state over the affairs of the
family.  Caring for children "at risk" certainly sounds
compelling... until one finds that NOW, powerful influence
brokers in the educational and sectors have defined "at risk" so
broadly as to potentially include any student.  Such children
may be removed from the home IF social workers and courts should
"discover" indicators which would place the child in this
category.  Study the "at risk" doublespeak in North Carolina's
policy:

Children and youth at risk in North Carolina are young people,
who because of a wide range of personal, familial, social, or
academic circumstances, may experience school failure or
unwanted outcomes unless there is intervention to reduce the
risk factors.  Primary factors that may identify these
children include the following: school performance at two or
more years below grade level; CAT scores below the 25th
percentile; academic failure; non promotion (being older than
classmates); truancy; substance abuse; delinquency;
disinterest in school; low self-esteem; learning disabilities;
physical or mental health problems; physical or sexual abuse;
pregnancy; unstable home environment/ family trauma; family
income at or below the poverty level; negative parental
attitudes toward school; low parental educational attainment;
frustration of unchallenged giftedness and unrecognized
talent, and limited English proficiency.

Since many states are developing policies similar to that of
North Carolina, a few questions are in order.  Just exactly what
constitutes an "emotional handicap"?  Do not many children
exhibit some temporary "low self esteem" from time to time?  How
will the school define "unstable home environments and family
trauma"? Surely, families periodically face trauma due to
prolonged illness of a member, death in the family, job loss,
financial reversals, etc.  This latter category is particularly
cruel, because the family may face trauma only to then face a
government service worker who believes it to be in the best
interest of the children now "at risk" to be removed... OR, at
the very least, the family should be subject to constant
scrutiny from that time forward.  In other words, because of
trauma, a family would now report to a government agentregularly
just as criminals report to probation officers. 

Consider the fact that, currently in forty states, there is the
Parent As Teacher program (PAT) which assumes jurisdiction over
children who fit their state's definition of "children at risk".
State designated "parent-educators" (not to be confused with
"parents" --doublespeak again!), are given authority to monitor
a home many times per year if the child is defined as "at risk".
Bettina Dobbs, R.N., M.S., former consultant to the U.S.
Department of Health and president of Guardians of Education for
Maine described this program:

It will result in state control of the children and reduce
parents to the status of breeders and 	supervised custodians.

A "parent-educator " bonds herself to a family through home
visits or school visits.  This is to help parents feel more
comfortable about leaving their child(ren) at the center.  Both
parents and children are evaluated under the guise of
educational screening.  The child is given a personal computer
code number by which he can be tracked the rest of his life. 
There are twelve computer code definitions which label the
child "at risk."  Since the expectation is that every child
will be found "mentally ill", there is no code for normal.

In Missouri, families are rated in the PAT program according to
"at risk" descriptions listed in the "Revised Missouri Risk
Factor Form", revised edition, copyright 1990 which includes the
following:

- premature babies, emergency delivery or birth trauma

- a child's slow growth, poor appetite or frequent illness

- inability of parent to cope with inappropriate child
  behavior, including spanking as exclusive form of
  discipline, and inconsistency

- a parent who is ill, tired, depressed, handicapped, injured
  or appears to be of low level intelligence

- undue spoiling on the part of the parent

- stress on the family such as a parent that travels
  frequently, three children under the age of three, divorce,
  separation, prolonged illness, loss of job, low level of income,
  moving to a new home

With such descriptions in hand, is it any wonder that the
National Education Association reports to the media that America
is a nation with a "spiraling epidemic" of students "at risk"
and counsels the nation's leaders to adopt programs which give
schools "watchdog " powers in their communities?  One must
admire the subtlety of doublespeak in its frightening abilityto
disarm the public at large into accepting as true, things which
are preposterous.  George Orwell was right.  The English
language is found to be in a bad way... And "Big Brother" loves
to have it so.

One wonders if "truancy" will AGAIN be the new attack upon home
schoolers as it has been in the past.  Ironically, Wisconsin's
legislature is currently considering a new "truancy" law which
can be interpreted broadly along such lines.  But will it?  That
probably depends upon how successfully doublespeak really works
with Wisconsinites.

SOCIAL ENGINEERING: A CONCERTED PLAN

In a recent article in the Milwaukee Journal, Patrick J.
Madden, Milwaukee County circuit court judge lamented the
general deterioration of values and morality.  However, with 35
years experience in government, he sees that which most parents
simply do not suspect.  He writes:

The real tragedy is the education of our children.  Abandoning
traditional concepts of teaching, we have allowed educational
theorists who seemingly are more concerned with social
engineering than with education to take over the formation of
our children.  True teachers, of which there are many, and the
parents of the children who are being subjected to this
experimentation should be up in arms at what is going on.  Some
are, but not enough.  Between the example we give young people
with popular culture and the kind of education we provide, is
it any wonder that the last 30 years have witnessed the
escalation of senseless violent crimes and general disrespect
for others by children.

How many realize that education, far from being the means of
leading children out of ignorance, is actually a program for
"social" (societal/governmentally endorsed values) "engineering"
(the design, construction, and supervision of a project or
program)?Judge Madden recognizes that there is an approach to
education which is radically different from what most of us
believe education to be.  Is it possible that all of the sudden
concern for "outcomes", district "goals", and "strategic
planning", is not really the result of local concern but is an
engineered result of someone's predetermined agenda?  After all,
these issues were not on the minds of most people even as late
as last fall and yet are, quite literally, the concerns of many
confused parents... everywhere.

THOSE "OUTCOMES" AGAIN

All of which brings us to the point of our current state of
confusion... "outcomes".  Over and over again the point is made
that local communities"determine for themselves" the goals which
they want for their children.  The impression is given that each
community is "master of its fate." However, nothing could be
further from the truth.  In the "OHIO 2000 DISCUSSION GUIDE",
page 9, there is an interesting statement which reads:

What schools in Ohio need are local campaigns that get the
community involved in education reform.  For this reason,
every Ohio community is encouraged to adopt the national
education goals and become an Ohio 2000 community.

This statement clearly positions the federal goals announced in
the "AMERICA 2000" program (hence, the name "Ohio 2000") as the
standard for educational reform throughout the country.  If the
federal "goals" are the standard, then one should expect to find
school programs reflecting a consistency, not independent
autonomy.  Not only is there consistency in the adopted goals,
even the wording is consistent.  If so, any implication that a
community will be able to retain true decision-making ( which
includes the right to disagree) in its district goals is
"doublespeak".

For example, Ohio goal #5 reads:

By the year 2000, every adult American will be literate and
will possess the knowledge and 	skills necessary to compete in a
global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of
citizenship. 

By comparison, Wisconsin goals state:

Students possess and exercise the knowledge and processes
necessary for full participation in the family, civic,
economic, and cultural life of a complex interdependent, global
society.

Ohio goal #6 reads as follows:

By the year 2000, every school in America will be free of drugs
and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive
to learning.

Two separate Wisconsin goals incorporate what Ohio simply
combined as one: 

Schools will provide an environment in which students are
actively engaged in authentic learning.

Society will promote drug- and violence-free schools and
communities.

A Missouri goal states:

By the end of this decade, Missouri should require an
outcome-based instructional program designed to assure success
for every student....  We must focus on outcomes and
accountability for individual students and teachers, as well
as for schools and school districts.

Wisconsin stated this as its goal:

The primary mission of schools will include a focus on outcomes
to insure that learning occurs in meaningful context.

These are but a few examples of the consistent wording of the
MANY goal/outcome formulations across the country.

One of the problems which faces critics of OBE is the fact that
it plays the part of the chameleon well.  Very often, proponents
of "goals" point to the "fact" that they are not using "outcome
based education" at all.  Parents and businessmen are told that
the schools are adopting "other strategies".  Descriptive titles
replace OBE IN NAME ONLY.  They include the following:  "exit
outcomes", "significant outcomes", "restructuring", "learner
outcomes", "exit behavior", "authentic assessment", "mastery", 
"heterogeneous groupings", "high expectations", "holistic education", 
"whole language focus in reading", "cooperative learning", "whole-
child development", "instructional strategies", "consensus", "lifelong 
learning", "success for all students", "performance outcomes", "results
based education", "competencies", "performance demonstrations",
"demonstrations of mastery", "assessing outcomes" and others. 

Thus, other names are used instead of OBE but the
methodologies, assessment tests, and adopted goals remain the
same or very similar. 

CONCLUSION:  WHAT TO DO?

1)  Beware of the use of "doublespeak", the language which
conceals this extraordinary social engineering program. 
Unfortunately, there are many fine people endorsing these
programs who simply do not know what the educational jargon
really means.  Remember the statement by William Lutz. 
"Doublespeak" is designed to PREVENT thought.  It is designed to
prevent objective examination.  Phrases like "children at risk"
and "outcomes" need full exposure.  Parents simply cannot
presume to believe what they are told. 

2)  Note carefully the content of the goals.  Invariably, they
will emphasize "politically correct" positions, global
citizenship, world economies, collectivistic behavior and
values, multicultural expression and acceptance, environmental
objectives, behavioristic attitudes and values clarification.

3)  Weigh carefully the rationale used to advocate proposed
outcomes, such as "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 ofkindergarten and
daycare programs); the need to prepare children to make the
transition from school to work.

4) 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 more
administrative and teaching positions (jobs !).  So, the 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, gradually "crowding " the family out of
the child's schedule as a primary sphere of influence over the
child.  The school then becomes the "family" (as former 
Secretary of Education, Lamar Alexander actually advocates) and
government sector personnel become "parents". 

5)  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.  One of the main reasons for the doublespeak emphasis of 
"local control", "local consensus", "each district's own outcomes" 
is so that by shifting the authority away from the state to the 
local school districts, OBE proponents... "can claim that the spending
changes result from locally established priorities and are not
part of a growing and 'bloated" bureaucracy.  (Lawrence Picus,
USING INCENTIVES TO STIMULATE IMPROVED SCHOOL PERFORMANCE: AN
ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES, p.5.)

6)  Write us as part of an ever expanding network of concerned
parents:
________________________________________________________________

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]


















































                                                                
