ALL CHILDREN CAN LEARN A primary supposition of outcome-based education is that, given enough time, all children can learn. Taken by itself this statement could be true. Yes, all children can learn ... something. But in OBE this statement means all children can learn everything they are expected to learn. Such a standard sounds positive until it is analyzed. This assertion can't possibly be true unless a core of academic requirements is not part of the evaluation criteria. There are some students who simply do not have an aptitude for trigonometry, history, or perhaps, foreign language. To claim that all students can master high school physics is absurd. To suggest that all students could learn economics or learn to be excellent writers is beyond credibility. The elite OBE proponents are well aware of this, yet they press ahead with their declaration that "all children can learn." Why? A review of the outcomes (chapter three) coupled with the philosophy of those behind OBE reveals why this claim can be made with logical impunity. Proponents of OBE make the seemingly irresponsible claim that all children can learn (everything) because at the core of transformational OBE one doesn't find a core of academics. This seems too absurd to be true, but consider the statements of two OBE proponents. Harvard Professor Anthony Oettinger has said: The present "traditional" concept of literacy has to do with the ability to read and write. But ... do we really want to teach people to do a lot of sums or write ... when they have a five-doflar hand-held calculator or a word processor? ... Do we really have to have everybody literate-writing and reading in the traditional sense ... ?Did you ever think you'd see the day when a professor from Harvard would suggest that writing and math aren't important? Couple this with the following quote where we see the interests of business specifically represented. Thomas B. Sticht, president and senior scientist, Applied Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Inc., San Diego, California, a member of the U.S. Secretary of Labor's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) says: Many companies have moved operations to places with cheap, relatively poorly educated labor. What may be crucial, they say, is the dependability of a labor force and how well it can be managed and trained - not its general educational level, although a small cadre of highly educated creative people is essential to innovation and growth.What Sticht is really saying is that we need more low wage laborers in America. The only way to keep a pool of them available is to be sure that most students doet get educated. As long as the masses are poor and uneducated, the small cadre of highly educated, creative people can control them and have the kind of life they want. Sticht is calling for preparing a workforce with limited learning for life-long labor. Recognize this position for what it is. Either Sticht is a willing dupe who actually believes in the goodness of the "Small cadre" or he is part of the small cadre and vying for power. You decide. The current administration in the White House is in lockstep with Sticht and those of like mind. During the Bush administration, Hillary Clinton was on the board of directors for the National Center on Education and the Economy. This group was established by the Carnegie organization, the engine driving social change through education in this country. In June 1990, this group published a report called "America's Choice: High skills or low wages." This report calls for reformers to connect Labor with education. On page two, referring to America's business community, the report says: ... the system is managed by a small group of educated planners and supervisors who do the thinking for the organization. They plan strategy, implement changes, motivate the workers and solve problems. Extensive administrative procedures allow managers to keep control of a large number of workers.However this report was motivated, whatever they were trying to conclude, it seems clear that those responsible for it want those in power to see America's need for less-educated people. The report went on to say "the primary concern of more than 80 percent of employers was finding workers with a good work ethic and appropriate social behavior: reliable, a good attitude, a pleasant appearance, a good personality." Further, their statement reads, "More than 70 percent of the jobs in America will not require a college education by the year 2000." These statements are especially curious in light of the name of the report that contains them ("America's Choice: High skills or low wages"). But what is needed? Workers who do what they are told, with a good attitude. How are these happy, uneducated workers produced? Start now teaching students, from the earliest grades, the attitudes and social behaviors that will please business and avoid a broad-based, high quality, academic education. CAN CHILDREN LEARN ... EVERYTHING? Let's go back to the question of whether all children can learn everything. From the above quotes, a distinct picture begins to emerge. The reason all children can learn under the transformational OBE system is because ultimately there is no core of academics for which they will be responsible (don't forget the four stages of implementation). The focus is on social behaviors that will enable them to function (at a minimal, dependent level) in the labor market. If you are still inclined to doubt the lack of content in transformational OBE, consider the following quote, again from Bill Spady, father of OBE, director of the International Center on Outcome-Based Restructuring and The High Success Network: I talk about two kinds of profound changes that need to happen if the system is going to be seriously outcome-based. One is, you have to stop being time-based. The second is to stop being curriculum-based (emphasis added).As you continue to learn more about OBE, it is important to know what the people at the top of education reform believe and the ideals for which they are working. In these first pages the attempt has been made to give you a basic introduction into the meaning and definitions used in OBE as well as the philosophy of several people at the top of education reform in this country. There are as many motivations and intentions as there are people who are involved in education. Some have altruistic motives. Without understanding what is behind OBE, they embrace it, hoping to stop the hemorrhage of academic quality from American schools. As has been said, good intentions are, well, good. But when it comes to action, they are inconsequential. What matters is philosophy and what is done to inculcate that philosophy. An entire book could be filled with quotes similar to the ones above from other elite education theorists and change-agents currently working for the implementation of transformational outcome-based education. What is important at this point is to understand the motivations of those at the top of education reform in America. How did this most recent twist in education "reform" get started? Chapter two provides a recent history of the winds of change sweeping American education. Get The Book!Outcome Based Education: Understanding the Truth About Education Reform by Ron SunseriSuggested Reading List - the Demise of the Educational System - OBE (Outcome-Based Education), NEA (National Education Association), educational psychology, German psychology & influences, demise of public education, educational sabotage, Wundt, Pavlov, Dewey, Skinner, Watson. Say NO To Psychiatry! Back to Education Main Page Back to Main SNTP Page
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
