Outcome Based Education
"Doublespeak"

Position Paper 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 even enlist 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 agent regularly 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 ability to 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 behaviors", "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 of kindergarten 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:



CRC-PIN
BOX 733
ELM GROVE WI. 53122


Reprinted with permission from the Parents Information Network