Outcome Based Education
"Longing" for the Old Model T

Position Paper 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 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 (failure)
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
"heretical" (not to mention "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 apparent problem 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 Tom Jefferson put it. 
George Washington expressed this sentiment, "Like fire, government
is, at best, a dangerous servant and, at worst, a fearful master." 
Thus an 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 results will invariably 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 determined independently 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.  Their
leadership makes such a consensus formidable especially in light of
the fact that such "heavy-hitters" are behind it.  Is it any wonder
that failure to "demonstrate" the approved outcomes concerning
environmentalist attitudes, multi-cultural expression, human growth
and development, sexual alternatives, societal (collectivist)
values and a host of "correct" political and religious views will
be sanctioned to the point that diplomas will be denied to those
who do not conform to the required testing?  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 when dealing with elementary testing). 
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 type 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 are given 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
wrote (as cited in Eakman):

     "Great society" programs have 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 position papers on OBE, please write to:

CRC-PIN
BOX 733
ELM GROVE WI. 53122


Reprinted with permission from the Parents Information Network