Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 08:06:48 -0400 To: stevengarlock@cs.com From: "RBOCCHINO" (by way of Fred Battey ) Subject: Standards/Accountability and OBE: What's the Difference? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_2989297==_.ALT" Status: --=====================_2989297==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed It's obvious that many conservatives (including GW Bush!) continue to support outcome-based education as long as it's the Republicans who propose it. They enthusiastically support unconstitutional federal control of education as long as their party controls it. This is what makes the conservative education agenda just as dangerous as the Democrats' version, and why there is frankly no difference between Bush's proposals and Gore's. Responding to an article by Phyllis Schlafly ("Hidden Hands In Career Planning," Washington Times, Oct. 1, 1995), Marc Tucker referred to the "strong bipartisan support" for passage of the School-To-Work bill, as well as the Careers Act (with a vote of 345 to 79). Tucker noted: "It is the bipartisan aspect of all this that seems to give Mrs. Schlafly the most discomfort. She cannot understand why Republicans would vote with Democrats on these bills. The answer is simple: This is essentially a conservative agenda. It pushes for higher standards for all students...and the means for getting students to meet them. That's why Republicans voted for these bills - and will continue to do so." (Marc Tucker - "Who Is Really Behind GOALS 2000 - And Why?", Washington Times Forum, October 15, 1995) George W. Bush's education agenda mirrors the NCEE's plan for the new human resource development system for the United States by promoting standards and assessments based on outcomes aligned with federal/national and international benchmarks. This is no accident. The Clinton/Gore administration admitted they were "reinventing government", and Marc Tucker and the NCEE explained how they proposed to control the policies of future administrations: "The advent of the Clinton administration creates a unique opportunity for the country to develop a truly national system for the development of its human resources&the NCEE and its predecessor, the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, have been elaborating a national agenda in this arena over the last eight years. It is essential that the nation s efforts be guided by a consistent vision that can shape not only the actions of the new administration but of many others over the next few years..." ---("A Human Resources Development Plan for the United States", Preface; NCEE Publication.) Clearly, the NCEE envisioned the agenda moving forward under whichever political party controlled the White House. Marc Tucker and the NCEE further make the case for standards-based reform: "First, a vision of a "national", not "federal" system&what is essential is that we create a seamless web of opportunities that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone&guided by clear standards and regulated on the basis of outcomes...clear national standards of performance in general education (the knowledge and skills that everyone is expected to hold in common), set to international benchmarks&a national system of education in which curriculum, pedagogy, examinations, and teacher education and licensure are all linked to the national standards&this new system of linked standards, curriculum and pedagogy will abandon the American tracking system, combining high academic standards with the ability to apply what one knows to real world problems and qualifying all students for a lifetime of learning in the postsecondary system and at work...a system that rewards students who meet the national standards&" (pp. 4-5) The NCEE plan also explained the need to reform the education system from a focus on "input" or content, to "outcomes": "We would sweep away means-tested programs...we would replace rules defining inputs with rules defining outcomes and the rewards for achieving them. This means permitting local people to combine many federal programs as they see fit, provided that the intended beneficiaries are progressing toward the right outcomes." (p.10) You may recall that the recent Charter District bill (proposed by CA. Republican state senator Bill Morrow) mandated that the charter district change from a "rule-based": to a "performance-based" (or outcome-based) system. Once again, this Republican-led bill used language from the Tucker/NCEE plan for a human resources development system. The Republicans would have established a precedent for a state mandate that charter districts be established under the OBE paradigm! Not one state level pro-family organization was willing to actively oppose this Republican bill for fear of upsetting the Republicans. This is the danger of party worship, when conservatives put party ahead of principle. As for "school choice", the NCEE plan calls for an "aggressive program of choice in our schools." (p.5) The only caveat is that any and all schools eligible under a "choice" plan (e.g., vouchers, charters) be required to implement the federal outcomes (see above quote, p.10). Which political party is pushing for educational "choice" within a standards-based reform agenda? Does anyone see a political pattern emerging here, besides Mrs. Schlafly? The process of implementing a federal education agenda through standards-based reform was also addressed by Ms. McKinna, of the CA State Dept. of Education at an Orange County STW public hearing. Ms. McKinna (a "liberal" in every sense of the word!) stated: "The state assessment and standards system is in good shape. The standards will give us the information we need to develop a state assessment system. This is in line with the federal expectations and federal grants, and state plans are all designed with this in mind. The federal government is aware of California's progress and has approved our progress every step along the way." (Transcript, Certified Court Report by Joyce Griffith, OCBOE Public Hearing, April 24, 1997) A county official asked Ms. McKinna to explain the following wording in CA's state STW plan: "School-to-work principles are going to be infused throughout California's K-12 curriculum for all students by the year 2002...All of California's K-12 curriculum will be integrated with school-to-career principles." Ms. McKinna explained: "The basic premise in California is that it is a locally-controlled state...it says that it 'shall be infused through the state frameworks.' " Folks, it doesn't get any clearer than when it is stated in THEIR OWN WORDS!!! The human resource development system is being promoted largely by the Republican party, following the NCEE blueprint for socialized labor and education in the United States. When will conservatives wake up? What did you really think OBE was all about, anyway? -Rebecca --=====================_2989297==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It's obvious that many conservatives (including GW Bush!) continue to support outcome-based education as long as it's the Republicans who propose it.  They enthusiastically support unconstitutional federal control of education as long as their party controls it.  This is what makes the conservative education agenda just as dangerous as the Democrats' version, and why there is frankly no difference between Bush's proposals and Gore's.
 
Responding to an article by Phyllis Schlafly ("Hidden Hands In Career Planning," Washington Times, Oct. 1, 1995), Marc Tucker referred to the "strong bipartisan support" for passage of the School-To-Work bill, as well as the Careers Act (with a vote of 345 to 79).  Tucker noted: "It is the bipartisan aspect of all this that seems to give Mrs. Schlafly the most discomfort.  She cannot understand why Republicans would vote with Democrats on these bills.  The answer is simple:  This is essentially a conservative agenda.  It pushes for higher standards for all students...and the means for getting students to meet them.  That's why Republicans voted for these bills - and will continue to do so." 
(Marc Tucker - "Who Is Really Behind GOALS 2000 - And Why?", Washington Times Forum, October 15, 1995)

George W. Bush's education agenda mirrors the NCEE's plan for the new human resource development system for the United States by promoting standards and assessments based on outcomes aligned with federal/national and international benchmarks.  This is no accident.  The Clinton/Gore administration admitted they were "reinventing government", and Marc Tucker and the NCEE explained how they proposed to control the policies of future administrations:

"The advent of the Clinton administration creates a unique opportunity for the country to develop a truly national system for the development of its human resources&the NCEE and its predecessor, the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, have been elaborating a national agenda in this arena over the last eight years.  It is essential that the nation s efforts be guided by a consistent vision that can shape not only the actions of the new administration but of many others over the next few years..."  ---("A Human Resources Development Plan for the United States", Preface; NCEE Publication.)

Clearly, the NCEE envisioned the agenda moving forward under whichever political party controlled the White House.  Marc Tucker and the NCEE further make the case for standards-based reform:

"First, a vision of a "national", not "federal" system&what is essential is that we create a seamless web of opportunities that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone&guided by clear standards and regulated on the basis of outcomes...clear national standards of performance in general education (the knowledge and skills that everyone is expected to hold in common), set to international benchmarks&a national system of education in which curriculum, pedagogy, examinations, and teacher education and licensure are all linked to the national standards&this new system of linked standards, curriculum and pedagogy will abandon the American tracking system, combining high academic standards with the ability to apply what one knows to real world problems and qualifying all students for a lifetime of learning in the postsecondary system and at work...a system that rewards students who meet the national standards&" (pp. 4-5)

The NCEE plan also explained the need to reform the education system from a focus on "input" or content, to "outcomes":  "We would sweep away means-tested programs...we would replace rules defining inputs with rules defining outcomes and the rewards for achieving them.  This means permitting local people to combine many federal programs as they see fit, provided that the intended beneficiaries are progressing toward the right outcomes."  (p.10)

You may recall that the recent Charter District bill (proposed by CA. Republican state senator Bill Morrow) mandated that the charter district change from a "rule-based": to a "performance-based" (or outcome-based) system.  Once again, this Republican-led bill used language from the Tucker/NCEE plan for a human resources development system.  The Republicans would have established a precedent for a state mandate that charter districts be established under the OBE paradigm!  Not one state level pro-family organization was willing to actively oppose this Republican bill for fear of upsetting the Republicans.  This is the danger of party worship, when conservatives put party ahead of principle. 

As for "school choice", the NCEE plan calls for an "aggressive program of choice in our schools." (p.5)  The only caveat is that any and all schools eligible under a "choice" plan (e.g., vouchers, charters) be required to implement the federal outcomes (see above quote, p.10).  Which political party is pushing for educational "choice" within a standards-based reform agenda?  Does anyone see a political pattern emerging here, besides Mrs. Schlafly?

The process of implementing a federal education agenda through standards-based reform was also addressed by Ms. McKinna, of the CA State Dept. of Education at an Orange County STW public hearing.  Ms. McKinna (a "liberal" in every sense of the word!) stated:

"The state assessment and standards system is in good shape.  The standards will give us the information we need to develop a state assessment system.  This is in line with the federal expectations and federal grants, and state plans are all designed with this in mind.  The federal government is aware of California's progress and has approved our progress every step along the way." (Transcript, Certified Court Report by Joyce Griffith, OCBOE Public Hearing, April 24, 1997)

A county official asked Ms. McKinna to explain the following wording in CA's state STW plan:  "School-to-work principles are going to be infused throughout California's K-12 curriculum for all students by the year 2002...All of California's K-12 curriculum will be integrated with school-to-career principles."   Ms. McKinna explained:  "The basic premise in California is that it is a locally-controlled state...it says that it 'shall be infused through the state frameworks.' "

Folks, it doesn't get any clearer than when it is stated in THEIR OWN WORDS!!!  The human resource development system is being promoted largely by the Republican party, following the NCEE blueprint for socialized labor and education in the United States. When will conservatives wake up?  What did you really think OBE was all about, anyway?  -Rebecca
--=====================_2989297==_.ALT-- .