\doc\web\97\08\skinner.txt From: "Lynn D. Leslie" 2505 North 61st Way Scottsdale, Arizona 85257-1916 October 23, 1997 Dear Fellow Americans: The United States Congress is about to pass a national reading program (HR-2614 Reading Excellence Act). This is totally unconstitutional. HR 2614 is using scientific/medical research studies conducted by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. It is most important that HR 2614 be totally defeated. First, this Act will establish a national reading program based on research developed on children with "learning disabilities, reading development and disorders, language development and disorders, disorders of attention, and developmental neuroimaging." It has been called to my attention that the American Federation of Teachers has a tentative list of programs it is circulating. At least two programs on their list are based on behavior modification as promoted by B.F. Skinner and other utopian radicals. It is believed that they have also hired the DISTAR disinformation group from Oregon to evaluate state standards for them. (Source: Dr. Kenneth Goodman, University of Arizona.) In 1984, the Arizona AFT passed two resolutions against behavior modification programs such as Direct Instruction Reading and Language Arts (DISTAR) and the Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction (ECRI). These resolutions were tabled by the executive committee of AFT. These two programs are on their tentative list as "promising programs for increasing student success with reading". The other programs on the list are: Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition; Multicultural Reading and Thinking (McRAT) (probably an appropriate acronym); Open Court Basal Series and Success for All. (List of programs from Dr. Kenneth Goodman.) In 1978, I was subjected to a week-long workshop by an ECRI, "trainer" to learn the method of mastery learning. This was the most dehumanizing program I have ever seen. The three reading specialists in our Title I program refused to teach it. I had many inquiries regarding this Skinnerian program from parents, administrators and teachers from around the nation. I wrote to many members of Congress and others regarding the devastating results of this program and other similar programs like it. I compiled a 75 page document taken from letters from educators and parents. This document was submitted at the Phoenix, Arizona hearing for the proposed regulations to implement the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment Section 439 of the GEPA. (March 1984.) My Congressman, Eldon Rudd, asked for an impartial investigation of the ECRI program, but to no avail. The United States Department of Education denied the Skinnerian method to Mr. Rudd. They denied that children were timed with a stop-watch. They denied as late as 1990, in a letter to me, that ECRI was using the Skinnerian method of operant conditioning. They asked me for proof, so I sent them the Teacher's Training Workbook and other information from ECRI. I also sent them the dismal test results from one district in Texas where ECRI had been used for several years. The Texas education department recommended another reading program. I received no response. Two parents in Texas were threatened with legal reprisal as I was from the developers large legal firm in Salt Lake City, Utah. These letters were included in my document mentioned above. I was slandered in an open meeting in Ohio by one of the ECRI trainers. I still have the tape and affidavits taken by a lawyer in Ohio. I mention only a few of the incidents that the proponents of ECRI have taken to silence the opposition. I refuse to be silenced then or now about these behavior modification, highly structured, scripted programs. I recently evaluated the Texas alternative program (TAD), and frankly I was appalled. TAD has many elements found in Skinnerian operant conditioning. Some of the people supporting HR 2614 supported TAD. For example, Bob Sweet, who has been hired by Rep. Bill Goodling to serve on the Education and Workforce Training Committee. Others such as Chester Finn have a vested interest. He is a member of the Edison Project, and the radical NASDC design team. This team proposes to teach the SCANS entry level workforce skills and Edison proposes to run the peoples' schools for profit. Really!! Programs such as ECRI are most effective in "training" for low level workforce jobs, the mentally handicapped, and some learning disabled on a limited basis. I suggest that members of the US Congress read the medical/scientific research regarding the possible harmful effects of classical and operant conditioning. I also suggest that Congress, before it passes this totalitarian act, read the negative research regarding such programs being used to teach academic skills. Perhaps these programs have been misrepresented to members of Congress as they were to my former Congressman Eldon Rudd. The United States Department of Education stated willful untruths to Mr. Rudd and me. I obtained the complete file (correspondence, etc.) from Mr. Rudd and DOE, DOE to Mr. Rudd through the Freedom of Information Act. I suggest that American citizens obtain the names of the programs and research immediately before HR 2614 becomes a law. This information should be readily available from the committee members on Reading and the Workforce in Rep. Bill Goodling's office. Better yet, call your own representatives in Congress and demand the names of the programs and the alleged academic results of research being used in HR 2614 and TAD. In September 1997 I was asked to evaluate the Texas Alternative Program (TAD) by Charlotte Iserbyt, author of "Back to Basics Reform OR… OBE *Skinnerian International Curriculum?" (1985). The following is part of what was included in my evaluation: I have read and studied with care the 334-page Texas Alternative Document (TAD) for English, Language Arts, and Reading. These objectives for "essential skills" appear to have been designed for the mentally retarded and children with severe handicaps. Since the propaganda sheets, designed for the website, proudly acclaim that their early reading acquisition and instruction are supported, and concur with over $100,000,000 worth of empirical reading research funded by the Child Health and Human Development Branch of the National Institutes of Health, and since they list as one of the "experts" sources of the "Chief Director of Learning Disabilities, Cognitive and Social Development Branch, of the same agency, I believe my analysis is a fair and objective one. Furthermore, they list as one "expert" source Douglas Carnine. Carnine was involved in developing a "direct instruction" program for children while at the University of Oregon. This program (DISTAR) was funded and promoted by the United States Department of Education. It continues to be promoted as a systematic direct phonics reading program. While it is scripted, like ECRI, it is not as highly structured, but is also based on the same programmed method promoted by the Skinnerian behavioral psychologists. (It is interesting to note now that he is also a big supporter of HR 2614.) I am deeply concerned about some of the supporters of the TAD document. Specifically, Bob Sweet, the President of the National Right to Read Foundation, who was recently hired by U.S. Rep. Bill Goodling's Committee on Education and Workforce. When he served in President Reagan's administration, I appealed to him and many members of Congress to investigate The Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction (a government-funded and promoted NDN program) and other highly structured stimulus-response-stimulus programs being used on NORMAL children. The original Right to Read Program was started under President Nixon. This program supported highly-structured behavior modification programs under the guise of Reading and Accountability. This federal program also funded the minimal CUES (continuous uniform essential skills) at the state and district level. Now I read that Sweet was "influential in getting the scientific/medical research started." (Press release.) The beginning of the drastic decline in academic basic skills can be traced to that time frame. The minimal became the curriculum because there was no time left to teach anything else. Teachers were worn out with all the paperwork and tracking involved in this worthless program. Bill Honig, former State Superintendent of School for California, is listed as a source and it appears he is connected with the Far West Lab, which under the direction of William Spady, gave us OBE. (A new name for Mastery Learning and Direct Instruction). Honig, by profession, was a lawyer, so one must question if some of the TAD supporters are "leading research scholars" as they claim in their propaganda. Other questionable "experts" are Dr. Chester Finn, Jr., (Hudson Institute) and Dr. E.D. Hirsch, Jr. (University of Virginia). The TAD documents carefully avoid the fact that Finn and Hirsch are members of one of the New American Schools Development Corporation's Design Team's models, The Modern Red School House. (Former Secretary of Education William Bennett was President of that particular design team.) This Design Team teaches the Secretary of Labor's specific entry level job skills (SCANS). Finn is also a member of the Edison Project which is contracted by some schools and districts to run school for profit. Finn was former Assistant Secretary, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, (OERI) in the United States Department of Education. Most of the TADS experts listed support charter schools. Charter schools are another means of controlling education. Eventually, I believe, all schools, including private and home schools, may be chartered by the state. All fifty states are now involved in GOALS 2000 and The School to Work Acts. Charter schools in Arizona must use the performance-based state essential skills tests. Performance-based tests are aligned to the curriculum. Many charter schools bluntly state they are preparing students for the workforce. Students are being trained in work skills according to the need of a particular community. This is very limiting. I am concerned that with the above aforementioned individuals' political connections and their strong support of the TAD document, it may become the model for the national curriculum. (HR 2416 is using the same source for research.) Above all, it is the method of instruction that concerns me the most. While TAD denies they are suggesting any specific method, any one who knows anything about Skinnerian teaching methods can see through the document. This becomes more apparent as one reads the scripted, highly-structured directives for oral language development, composition skills and spelling. THE TEACHER SHALL: is a directive not an objective. In my opinion, TAD is the same old Skinnerian, lock-stepped, programmed method that contributed to the destruction of academic freedom and academic achievement in the U.S. This scripted, highly-structured program is designed for pre-kindergarten (3 and 4 year olds) through 12th grade. Are our children all disabled? This type of program has been used in Head Start mainly in the Follow Through Programs, for many years. The lack of retained academic achievement has been documented in research. This "scientific/medical" model works well with animals, and some trainable mentally handicapped, and some severely handicapped individuals, but it does not increase academic skills with normal students. This research is also readily available and has been available for many years. Of course, if the major objective is to train and control, not educate, then this is a very effective method. It is also effective in some rote entry-level workforce skills training. That research is also available. This method, plus training all students for service or work skills, was and is used in the former USSR and other socialistic and totalitarian nations. Measurement and accountability appear to be the major emphasis in the TAD document. When these goals become the prevailing force in education, then our country is in deep trouble. There is little doubt that with this scripted curriculum, teachers and students will be held accountable. But, to whom, and for what purpose? Briefly I have listed some concerns found in TAD: *Why are 10th grade students still being read to and required to respond orally? (Note: In S-R-S methods [overt] oral and timed responses are necessary to measure change. Science can only measure what can be heard of observed.) *Why are students required to keep a private personal record? Who is going to see this record? What is the purpose? *Why is everything segmented? Why are some basic skills repeated year after year in isolation? *Why are Greek and Latin root words never applied in a whole word? Why are students not required to build new words from these segments? *Why do they not use a spelling book? Spelling books serve a purpose if used correctly in developing language. *Where are the Reading and Language books? Students can use good textbooks for self-teaching and reinforcement. *When and from what do the students study on their own? How can parents help children (especially semi-illiterates) if they have no directions or guidelines to follow (no textbooks)? *Why do so many of the early literature books emphasize Greek, Nordic and worldwide myths and legends? Some is good, but TAD over-emphasizes these in my opinion. *Why are the 12th grade composition skills based around the British literature? *Why do students only work on sentence structure and one paragraph development through 9th grade? This is a little late. *Why are children still blending (cvc, e.g., c-a-t) words in 3rd grade? Why is this necessary? *Why must children learn isolated sounds to "automaticity"? This is rote learning and if attached to Skinnerian S-R-S methods, these isolated segments actually bypass the brain. According to research studies, there is no transfer with this type of learning. It is knee-jerk mentality. *Why so much emphasis on group learning? Group learning may lead to group conformity, especially with small children. *How are students graded on group work? Are they given group grades? *Why is no reference made to creative writing? *Are children's records and personal data being sent to the federal Speede-Express computer data system? This system collects over 400 items which includes tests, family background, eye color, birthmarks and baptismal names. Individuals are tracked from birth to death on this data system, and state educational systems agencies are involved in the data tracking. I can foresee that these "basic essential skills" will become the full curriculum, especially when children are required to do community service; train in workforce skills; attend sex education classes; conflict resolution classes; drug education classes; character building classes; career counseling classes; and whatever the "experts" come up with next. There will be no time for individual creative teaching or learning. THE TEACHER SHALL; and the students should become programmed robots!! Ann Herzer, M.A. Reading Specialist – graduate of Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona – member of Pi Lambda Theta (National Honors and Professional Association in Education). __________________________________________________ The Christian Conscience P.O. Box 17346 Des Moines, IA 50317-0346 FAX: 515-262-9854 conscien@netins.net http://www.netins.net/showcase/conscience/ Date sent: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 23:04:57 -0500 From: "Melanie K. Fields" Organization: Professional Mommy To: "Hoffman, Gloria PA" Subject: FWD:ALERT HR 2614 Forward from Sarah. ------------------------------------------------- Fellow loopies: Not everyone agrees on the education issues, even among those of us who oppose reform. This series of alerts comes from Charlotte Iserbyt and Ann Herzer, both who offer an opposing point of view on an important bill coming up for a vote in Congress. Please read both sides of the story before you support this bill. Ann and Charlotte were fighting reform while some of us were still sharpening our pencils in grade school. In other words, they've been at this a long time and have reams of documentation to back up the statements they make in these alerts. Sarah Leslie __________________________________________________ The Christian Conscience P.O. Box 17346 Des Moines, IA 50317-0346 FAX: 515-262-9854 conscien@netins.net http://www.netins.net/showcase/conscience/ URGENT! VOTE IS 10/29/97 (WED.)! Alert (HR 2614 The Reading Excellence Act) The United States Congress is about to pass the first reading program in the history of the nation. This act is totally unconstitutional. If that isn't bad enough they are reported to be using experimental research developed on children with "learning disabilities, reading development and disorders, language development and disorders, disorders of attention, and developmental neuroimaging." (Neuroimaging is attempting to scan the bran to best determine the best methods to teach reading.) Apparently this "group" believes that systematic, engineered scripted programs is the best method. Apparently they have seen something in the scans of the children's brains to justify their research. (Really, I'm not putting you on!) The same research was used to develop the Texas Alternative Program (TAD). I evaluated that program last month, and frankly I do not think TAD or HR 2614 is about teaching reading. TAD has the elements of Skinnerian programmed S-R-S in its objectives. AS a strong proponent of phonics, I could never teach reading in this manner. The TAD document looks like ECRI and DISTAR to me. Both are based on Skinnerian programmed methods. Isolated bits and pieces of skills are taught over and over. Children are still blending consonant-vowel-consonant words like c-a-t in the third grade. Every child, even the disabled, should have cvc [consonant-vowel-consonant] words mastered in six weeks. Call your Congressional Representatives and demand to see the programs and research being used in HR 2614. (202-224-3121 – The Capitol switchboard). Better yet, call the Education and Workforce Committee Office at 202-225-4527 and demand to see the programs and research they are using to implement this federal, unconstitutional law. (Ann Herzer, MA Reading Specialist; Graduate Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona; Member Pi Lambda Theta (National Honors and Professional Association in Education) Herzer's piece unearths a few good topics I'd like some follow up in - who is the this BF Skinner guy anyways? And what's this behavior modification stuff? - WA has adopted the term "essential skills" Where did this come from? - Is OBE really derived from mastery learning? - This is the first time I've seen somebody say this mastery based stuff was originally aimed at the mentally handicapped lowest performers. How did it evolve to cover everybody? > From: "Melanie K. Fields" > Organization: Professional Mommy > To: "Hoffman, Gloria PA" > Subject: FWD:ALERT:ROBOT BILL!! > FAX: 515-262-9854 >