14 EXIT OBE OUTCOMES
\doc\web\98\08\obegoal.txt
The 14 goals previously mentioned are listed below. Only number 14 really
talks about academics, hence the problem with OBE.
"WHAT WE WOULD LIKE ALL KIDS TO KNOW OR BE ABLE TO DO BEFORE EXITING OUR
SCHOOL OR DISTRICT"
1. To communicate effectively (R,W,S,L)
2. To be critical thinkers and creative problem solvers; to exercise higher
order thinking skills
3. To be responsible citizens, contributing and modeling democratic values
4. To become life long learners, being adaptive, flexible, and receptive to
change
5. To be knowledgeable consumers
6. To possess a sense of self, personal power, and self esteem
7. To embrace/appreciate differences of all kinds
8. To be able to access information; research
9. To be knowledgeable of and practice life long wellness
10. To demonstrate positive interpersonal relationships; work cooperatively
11. To practice environmental preservation; to be a global citizen
12. To demonstrate an appreciation for the aesthetics
13. To have decision making skills
14. To acquire a "critical mass" of knowledge
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 17:32:43 -0500
To: 71524.2205@compuserve.com
From: "Larry Gipson" (by way of Fred Battey )
Subject: OBE - note to an email group
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Status:
Subject: Re: OBE and Goals 2000
Hi Folks,
I usually lurk this group, but thought I might add a different flavor to
this discussion.
There has been a lot written on OBE since it was created by Bloom (Blooms
Taxonomies) and Spady. At this point, there are many groups opposed to this
methodology. As usual, a reasonable enough concept has in many cases been
ruined during actual implementation.
So how is OBE supposed to work? During recent meetings at our local high
school, we sat while a consultant drew four quadrants on a large piece of
paper. On one axis, he wrote the word "Academics" and on the other he wrote
another word (I forget now) concerning another dimension in the affective
domain. The number 4 was assigned to the square indicating the highest
academic achievement with the highest affective component. This was defined
as a "transformational" school and one to be sought after (i.e.
transformational outcome based education). The number 3 was put in the
square with the highest academic achievement, but the lowest affective
component. Here is the main problem. Most of the activist groups would put
the 4 where the 3 was. They see the affective domain as an area that has
seen too much emphasis recently at the expense of true academics. (The
goals2000 pilot school implementation in Cottage Grove Oregon has proven to
be truly controversial. Horror stories exist by the thousands.)
Once we (supposedly) accepted the "goodness" of the transformed school, 14
objectives were brought out. (Privately the consultant indicated that all
schools in the nation were implementing the exact same goals.) Not
surprisingly, the teachers had gone through a multi year effort to create
their own goals only to have their goals replaced with a subset of these 14
goals at the last minute. My take on these 14 goals is that they are very
weak in academic value. I will include these goals and you can judge for
yourself.
>From here we were supposed to develop "rubrics and tasks". Let's say that
the rubric is to teach environmentalism. From there tasks would be
determined and combined with all classes. For instance, the English class
would write papers on the rain forest. Social studies would study the rain
forest. Mathematics would include problems on the rain forest and so on.
When the student is approached from so many places on the subject, he/she is
supposed to come away thinking that the rain forest (or whatever) is really
great and environmentalism is wonderful. So OBE truly is a sort of
indoctrination process, superimposing a set of educational goals on top of
normal curricula. It is exactly this use of OBE that has come under fire
from various groups across the nation. ("We want education, not
indoctrination" and so forth.)
So is OBE really bad? In it's original intent, I believe it was supposed to
be an extension of the taxonomies an a valued part of education. Certainly
if a "preferred" school had been defined as the "3" square above, no one
would be complaining. There would be a set of academic standards as rubrics
and tasks which would not be at all controversial. So the hijacking of the
strategy into the affective domain has caused great problems.
Part of the problem with OBE is that it has become associated with many new
"reform" programs which are not OBE, but are in themselves controversial.
Most of these "reform" programs spring from progressive, child centered
education (Dewey, etc.) taken to the extreme. We have seen this battle
played out recently in California with both Whole Language and the latest
NCTM math programs - both of which have been killed by the State Board of
Ed. (Both are still supported by State Superintendent Delaine Eastin).
Goals 2000/School To Work has really proven to be more a Goals 200 program
in many places. Everywhere it is implemented OBE and "reform" curricula
follow. Another objection often heard is based solely on the increased
"federalization" of education removing local control. For a few percent of
the funding for the schools, a zillion federal strings are placed on the
schools, dictating what will be taught and how. Also included are one stop
shopping social services and other non-academic features requiring schools
to spend more money than they receive from the feds in the first place. I'd
rather give the teachers a raise and just let them teach.
Thanks,
Larry