B to B Reform Iserbyt 17p

What does the federalNo Child Left Behind Act

hold schools accountable for?

The answer—and more—is found in Back To BasicsReform, Or…OBE *Skinnerian International Curricu-lum? (50,000 copies sold since publication in 1985).The careful documentation in this book by CharlotteT. Iserbyt—a former school board member andformer official in the U.S. Department of Education—exposes the federally-funded activities behind the na-tionwide dumbing down of education.

In Back to Basics Reform... you will discover academ-ics are incidental in the federally-driven systemicschool restructuring. You will find federal/interna-tional/world-class [education] standards are steepedin non-academic objectives. (Note: Bush’s No ChildLeft Behind Act (NCLB) holds public schools account-able for a child’s acquisition of attitude, value, andbehavior outcomes that are nestled in state standardsand integrated with academic curriculum! NCLB alsodemands accountability for having highly qualifiededucators—of which national certification is basedin part on an educator’s ability to collect and assess achild’s personal information, use behavior psychol-ogy-based practices on kids, and more.)

Iserbyt’s Back to Basics Reform also cites the U.S. De-partment of Education’s distribution of public moneyfor research that uses school childrenas lab rats. Does the public know thatexperimentation—especially in lowincome, high minority areas—is tak-ing place? Is it any surprise that kidsfrom Mastery Learning/Direction In-struction sites have difficulty readingand writing after 12 years of feder-ally controlled experimental school-ing? Proof of such rat lab experimen-tation responsible for declining testscores follows:

BY CHARLOTTE T. ISERBYT

BACK TOBASICS

REFORMOR...OBE *SKINNERIAN

INTERNATIONAL CURRICULUM?

*Necessary for United States’ participationin a socialist one-world government

scheduled for the early years ofthe twenty-first century

BACK TOBASICS

REFORM

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Send this information to local school board members, state legislators, U.S. Congressmen and Senators.Elected officials MUST be informed about the damaging, dumbing down activities that state/federal educa-tion reform policies and public tax dollars have supported and continue to support, all in the name of"accountability to the corporate/federal government partnership", NOT to the parent or local school district.——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

PDF of Back to Basics Reform available at: www.deliberatedumbingdown.com

February 2004

University of California Professor James Block, oneof the fathers of mastery learning/direct instructionsaid in 1985: "I don't know of any major urban schoolsystem in the United States that has not adopted somekind of mastery learning program."

Bruce Joyce in his Models of Teaching, 1985, revealsthat Direct Instruction, the scientific research-basedmethod to teach reading called for in the No ChildLeft Behind Act, is the same as Skinnerian MasteryLearning when he associates Direct Instruction withthe work of James Block, Benjamin Bloom, the lateMadeline Hunter, and Ethna Reid.

And, most shocking of all, is an admission made byBrian Rowan who was involved with William Spadyin the infamous 1984 Utah Outcomes-based Educa-tion grant which called for "putting Outcomes-basedEducation (OBE) in all school of the nation." Rowan,in a federally-funded paper titled "Shamanistic Ritu-als in Effective Schools", 1984, said in regard to Effec-tive Schools (which calls for ML/DI):

"The ritual is particularly suited to application in ur-ban or low performing school systems where success-ful instructional outcomes among disadvantaged stu-

dents are highly uncertain but wheremobilized publics demand immedi-ate demonstrations of success. Theuncertainties faced by practitionersin this situation can easily be allevi-ated by what scholars have begun tocall 'curriculum alignment.' [teach tothe test—Ed.] "Student variability inperformance can be reduced, andrelative performance increased, notby changing instructional objectivesor practices, but simply by changingtests and testing procedures."

“In fact, a large part of what we call‘good teaching’ is the teacher’s abilityto attain affective objectives [attitudes,values, belief–Ed.] through challenging thestudents’ fixed beliefs and getting themto discuss issues.”

—Professor Benjamin Bloom, et al 29

As our nation moves into the Twenty-first Century, Americans should askthemselves what EXACTLY are the goalsthe internationalist education elite hasset for American education, and howachievement of these goals will affect notonly our children and grandchildren, butthe future of our nation itself?

This book deals with the social engi-neers’ continuing efforts, paid for withinternational, federal, state, and tax-ex-empt foundation funding, to manipulateand control Americans from birth todeath using the educational system asthe primary vehicle for bringing aboutplanned social, political, and economicchange. (The major change in our eco-nomic system will be the determinationby industry and government of who willbe selected to perform the necessarytasks in our society—quotas for engi-neers, doctors, service workers, etc., tobring about the socialist concept of fullemployment.)

As you read on, you will recognize thekey roles played by the behavioral psy-

chologists, sociologists, educationists,and others in bring about this plannedchange—through the radical transfor-mation of America’s classrooms fromplaces of traditional cognitive/academiclearning, where intellectual and aca-demic freedom flourish, into experimen-tal laboratories for psychological (atti-tude and value) change, using moderntechnology (the computer for individu-alized instruction and for administrativemanagement systems) in conjunctionwith the totalitarian theories of Profes-sor B.F. Skinner and other less well-known social engineers.

The following statements by ProfessorSkinner are self-explanatory. Theyshould be kept in mind as one reads on.Skinner clearly defines what is happen-ing in many schools of America today—not only to students and parents, but toteachers and administrators as well—

BACK TO BASICS REFORM OR...OBE *SKINNERIAN INTERNATIONAL CURRICULUM?

BY CHARLOTTE T. ISERBYT

*Necessary for United States’ participation in a socialist one-worldgovernment scheduled for the early years of the twenty-first century

———————————————————————————————————————————————————2004 NOTE FROM AUTHOR : Predictions made in this book, written in 1985 , have come true. The book—which spells out clearly how OBE, Goals 2000, No Child Left Behind, and School-to-Work would be implemented—was boycotted by major conservative organizations. Read it andask yourself "Why?" The book has, however, sold well (50,000 copies) to grassroots organizations.

This 2004 reproduction is for public distribution.

BACK TO BASICS REFORM

———————— ▼ ————————

“Coexistence on thistightly knit earth shouldbe viewed as an existencenot only without wars…

but also without telling ushow to live, what to say,

what to think, what to know,and what not to know.”

—Aleksander Solzhenitsyn

———————— ▼ ————————

and what will happen in ALL schools ofthe nation AND of the world unless citi-zens like you, the reader, take immedi-ate action to reverse the dangerous cycle.

In SCIENCE AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR,Skinner says,

“Operant conditioning shapesbehavior as a sculptor shapes alump of clay.”1

In the book, B.F. SKINNER, THE MANAND HIS IDEAS, the author, RichardEvans, quotes Skinner as saying “I couldmake a pigeon a high achiever by rein-forcing it on a proper schedule.”2 Evansadds,

“His (Skinner’s) concern for whathe believes to be the inadequacy ofour formal education system led toapplying the principles of operantconditioning to a learning systemwhich he called the teaching machine,but Skinner’s approach is concernedwith more than merely methods andtechniques. He challenges the veryfoundation by which man in oursociety is shaped and controlled.”3

Dean Corrigan, in a 1969 speech to teach-ers, predicted that Skinner’s ‘teachingmachines will pace a student’s progress,diagnose his weakness and make certainthat he understand a fundamental con-cept before allowing him to advance tothe next lesson.”4

1Back To Basics Reform, Or…OBE *Skinnerian International Curriculum? | by Charlotte T. Iserbyt

————— ▼ —————

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONFUNDING SKINNERIAN

MASTERY LEARNING PROGRAMS

The accuracy of Corrigan’s predictionsis evidenced by the U.S. Department ofEducation’s financial support over a 20-year period for research, development,dissemination, and implementation ofSkinnerian Outcome-based MasteryLearning systems which “pace astudent’s progress, diagnose his weak-nesses and make certain that he under-stands a fundamental concept before al-lowing him to advance to the next les-son.” (Meaning: sequential learning inwhich each individual student is evalu-ated only in terms of his achievement ofpredetermined learning objectives andcriteria test items, and in which there areno group norms and consequently NOcompetition.)

The Exemplary Center for Reading In-struction (ECRI), a federally-funded anddisseminated, $848,536 Mastery LearningOutcome-based Skinnerian learning sys-tem developed by Dr. Ethna Reid of Utahin 1966, still receives federal financialsupport and is in use in at least 3,000schools across the nation, although ac-cording to doctors, teachers and parents,it causes sickness and stress for studentsand turns teachers into robots.

Dr. Jeanette Veatch, internationallyknown in the field of reading, called theECRI program “a more modern versionof breaking children to the heel ofthought control.” She added, “it is so fla-grantly dangerous, damaging and de-structive I am appalled at its existence.”5

————— ▼ —————

ARIZONA EDUCATORSDENOUNCE FEDERALLY-FUNDED

OPERANT CONDITIONING PROGRAMS

On May 5, 1984, the officers of the Ari-zona Federation of Teachers unani-mously passed a resolution, excerpts ofwhich state they “oppose such programsas ECRI, Project INSTRUCT and/or anyother programs that use operant condi-

tioning under the guise of MasteryLearning, Classroom Management, Pre-cision Teaching, Structured Learningand Discipline, and petition the U.S.Congress for protection against the useof such methods on teachers and stu-dents without their prior consent.”6

Unfortunately, the national AmericanFederation of Teachers (AFT) declinedto adopt its Arizona affiliate’s resolution(above) at its August 1984 national con-vention in Washington, D.C.

————— ▼ —————

NEA PROMOTESMASTERY LEARNING

Not unexpected is the fact that the AFT’scompetitor, the National Education As-sociation (NEA), is actively promotingMastery Learning and its use of criticalthinking skills. Mary Futrell, Presidentof the NEA, is presently using paid ad-vertisements proclaiming that “theschools must move away from the stuffed‘sausage’ approach—that is, learningfacts—to the mastery learning project.”7

The real “meat and potatoes” of theNEA’s substitute for “learning facts”was unveiled at the 123rd Annual Meet-ing of the NEA held in Washington, D.C.,June 28-July 3, 1985. A press release dis-tributed at the meeting explained thatthe NEA’s “Mastery in Learning Project”is to be piloted in six schools in the fallof 1985 at five initial sites: Conejo El-ementary School in Thousand Oaks, CA;Hillside Jr. High in Simi Valley, CA; Mt.Vernon Elementary School in Alexan-dria, VA; Westwood Primary School inDalton, GA; Greasewood School (K-12)on the Navajo Reservation in Arizona.

Also revealed is the fact that nine re-gional laboratories, funded by the U.S.Department of Education, are support-ing the NEA project. “…this is the firsttime all these labs have come togetherto support a comprehensive national ef-fort. …” said project director RobertMcClure. [Emphasis added]

Furthermore, four research centers,funded by the U.S. Department of Edu-

cation, will be “backing” the Mastery inLearning Project, including centers atUCLA, Johns Hopkins, and U. of Texasat Austin—all very active in changeagent activities. The project will also re-ceive funding assistance from the Ten-nessee Valley Authority and the Bureauof Indian Affairs.

As startling as this information is, it isnothing compared to the informationfound in a booklet distributed at theNEA meeting which describes in consid-erable detail what the Mastery in Learn-ing Project encompasses.

For example, it is explained that Mas-tery Learning is a “concept first pro-posed a generation ago by Harvard psy-chologist Jerome Bruner…A growingbody of research and educational reformproposals from such respected educa-tional analysts as Mortimer Adler (devel-oper of the Paideia Proposal and long-timeadvocate of a One World Government—Ed.],John Goodlad, Theodore Sizer, andErnest Boyer have all sought to translateBruner’s work into classroom reality.”

How shocking! This certainly validateswhat parents and concerned educatorshave been saying for years! Every oneof the above-mentioned people are keychange agents: major architects of thehorrendous education mess and declin-ing test scores we are now experiencing.That the above named change agents(and others) have been “translating” thework of Jerome Bruner into classroompractice speaks volumes. That those re-sponsible for the destruction of Ameri-can education are being called on to par-ticipate in its “reconstruction” bogglesthe mind!

Many who are reading this book willrecall several years ago the battle ragingin school districts around the country,and even around the world (in Austra-lia, for example) over an elementary So-cial Studies program called Man: ACourse of Study (MACOS). In the Con-gressional Record, April 9, 1975, pageH2585, Arizona Congressman JohnConlan said this about MACOS:


“ The course was designed by ateam of experimental psychologistsunder Jerome S. Bruner and B.F.Skinner to mold children’s socialattitudes and beliefs along lines thatset them apart and alienate themfrom the beliefs and moral values oftheir parents and local community.”

For those who may not know, MACOSwas suppose to help children under-stand what made them human by ex-ploring in depth the lifestyle of an ob-scure Eskimo tribe. In reality, the pur-pose of MACOS (which is still beingused) is, as Congressman Conlan indi-cated, to “mold the children’s social at-titudes and beliefs…”

For example, parents were outraged thattheir fifth grade children were requiredto read ugly stories which promoted in-fanticide, cannibalism, incest andsenilicide—the deliberate shoving ofaged relatives out on the ice to die alone.

And here we are, many years later, andnothing has changed for the better. Thelatest “innovation” i.e., Mastery Learn-ing, will be used as a vehicle to “trans-late” anti-life, sub-human, values-chang-ing, behavior modification techniquesthat characterized the MACOS program.But with an important difference: before,parents could examine their children’stextbooks; now, thanks to technology,nothing or nobody will be able to get be-tween the child and his computer. Ex-cept, of course, the internationalistchange agents.

Also revealed in the NEA booklet, is thefact that “Mastery Learning is one ofmany instructional models. Others in-clude Active Teaching, Direct Instruc-tion, Student Team Learning, Socraticquestioning, coaching, creative problemsolving, Bruner’s Concept AttainmentStrategy, and Madeline Hunter’s TargetTeaching Approach. These models incor-porate research on effective teaching, andall may be explored by the schools asso-ciated with the project.”

For more information on this project,write to Mastery in Learning Project,

NEA, 1201 16th Street N.W., Washing-ton, D.C. 20036.

————— ▼ —————

NATIONAL DIFFUSION NETWORKPUSHES SKINNERIAN PROGRAMS

FOR DISADVANTAGED

The activities of the NEA and the U.S.Department of Education and its labo-ratories and centers in 1985 shed lighton why the U.S. Department of Educa-tion refused in 1981 to conduct an inde-pendent reevaluation of the model Mas-tery Learning program, the ExemplaryCenter for Reading Instruction (ECRI).

The following deception by the U.S. De-partment of Education, in order to keepECRI alive as a model for developmentof future Mastery Learning programs,should serve as an important warningfor Americans who still trust the major-ity of educators who have been trainedin “end justifies the means” moral rela-tivism instead of the traditional code ofethics in existence since the founding ofthis nation. A letter from Assistant Sec-retary James Rutherford to Congress-man Eldon Rudd dated January 19, 1981,says “The ECRI program…is not an ‘op-erant conditioning” program.”8

The Department of Education has ada-mantly refused to conduct an indepen-dent re-evaluation of ECRI, denying thatthe program uses stopwatches to timechildren or that it uses Skinnerian tech-niques, even though the entire 100-pageteacher pre-service training manual isdevoted to the training of teachers instimulus-response-stimulus operantconditioning techniques, and materialson the ADAPTATION OF BIRDS,MONITORING FORMS BEFORE ANDAFTER INSTRUCTION (observationdata sheet records), HOW TO TEACHANIMALS by Skinner, HOW TOTEACH ANIMALS: A RAT, A PIGEON,A DOG, by Kathleen and Shauna Reid,etc., are listed as teacher and source ma-terials by ECRI.

In addition to the above documentation,the July 1984 issue of The Effective School

Report says in very small print, “The fol-lowing professionals and groups haveinitiated successful educational pro-grams which can work together as acommon system to deliver PREDICT-ABLE SUCCESS (emphasis in original)for each learner—the ultimate criterionof an effective school program: B.F. Skin-ner, Norman Crowder, Robert E. andBetty O. Corrigan; 1950-1984; MasteryLearning Practices.”9 [Emphasis added]

Utah’s Terrel Bell, former Secretary ofEducation in the Reagan Administra-tion, has recently joined the Board of Di-rectors of Kelwynn, Inc., the effectiveschools training company which pub-lishes The Effective School Report. Thepresence of a former Cabinet memberand Secretary of Education on its Boardof Directors elevates Kelwynn, Inc. andits Effective School Report to a new levelof importance in national educationpolicy.

The Department of Education cannot affordto permit an independent re-evaluationof ECRI, according to a March 30, 1980memorandum to Secretary of EducationShirley Hufstedler from Acting AssistantSecretary Dick W. Hays, which says,

“conducting the review has theadvantages of terminating thecontroversy concerning ECRI and oflimiting the controversy to ECRI.This response could be precedentsetting, however, and open up thepossibility of having to respond tosimilar requests in the future in thesame manner. Not conducting thereview removes the precedent-setting possibility but it is likely toprolong the controversy about ECRIand could result in an enlargementof the controversy to include otheror all programs developed or oper-ated with federal education funds.”10

The Department was rightfully con-cerned that a re-evaluation would opena Pandora’s Box, thwarting its ultimategoal of implementing Mastery Learningnationwide (1984 Far West Laboratorygrant discussed later and 1985 NEA


Mastery in Learning Project) and allow-ing parents (of all people!) a glimpse intoits multitude of National Diffusion Net-work (NDN) programs that use Skinne-rian operant conditioning on their chil-dren, twenty-five or more of which arethe highly controversial Follow Throughprograms for economically disadvan-taged kindergarten through third gradestudents. (The social engineers alwaysexperiment on the helpless and disad-vantaged, using them as guinea pigswith pre and post testing, before theytarget “all” our children for “treatment.”)

The Summary of the National Evalua-tion Follow Through Findings, 1970-1976 says,

“Gary McDaniels who designed thefinal Follow Through evaluationplan for the U.S. Office of Education,characterized Follow Through,which involves 180 cooperatingcommunities, as ‘the largest andmost expensive social experimentever launched’.”

————— ▼ —————

WELL-KNOWN EDUCATORDENOUNCES SKINNERIANPROGRAMS IN LETTER TO

PRESIDENT CARTER

Professor Kenneth Goodman, formerPresident of the International ReadingAssociation, in a letter to PresidentCarter dated March 10, 1978, refers to the$100,000,000 evaluation of the Followthrough program as a “fiasco” and says,

“There is a know-nothing view thatcombines the outward vestiges oftechnology-machines, managementsystems, arbitrary controlledatomistic skills sequences, andconstant testing—with a philosophyof behavior management. In behaviormanagement, outcomes are assumedor arbitrarily determined and thebehavior of human learners is shaped,conditioned, reinforced, extinguished,rewarded or punished until thelearners achieve the target behavior.”12

One would have expected the outrage

Happen,” must be ordered through yourCongressman or directly from theAmerican Association of School Admin-istrators at 1801 N. Moore St., Arlington,VA 22209. ALL Americans must read thisfor an understanding of ongoing efforts,paid for by the taxpayers without theirknowledge, to implement Outcome-based Mastery Learning nationwide andto psychologically manipulate localteachers and citizens in order to get theeducators’ core world government cur-riculum adopted in each and everyschool district in America.

In a letter to former Secretary of Educa-tion Terrel Bell, dated July 27, 1984, theUtah State Superintendent of Public In-struction, G. Leland Burningham says,

“I am forwarding this letter toaccompany the proposal which you(Bell) recommend Bill Spady [theDirector of the Far West Laboratorywhich received the grant—Ed.] and Iprepare in connection with Out-come-based Education. This pro-posal centers around the detailedprocess by which we will worktogether to implement Outcome-based Education using researchverified programs. This will make itpossible to put Outcome-basedEducation in place, not only in Utah,but in all schools of the nation.”14

[Emphasis added] (The Far WestLaboratory is also one of the ninelabs working with the NEA on itsMastery In Learning Project.)

————— ▼ —————

SPADY ADMITSMASTERY LEARNING IS

“AFFECTIVE” EDUCATION ANDBEHAVIOR MODIFICATION

Dr. Spady, who has held, among otherimportant positions, that of Senior Re-search Sociologist with the National In-stitute of Education between 1973 and1978, is dedicated to implementing Mas-tery Learning across the nation. Spadysaid at a conference I attended on April21, 1982, that two of the four functionsof Mastery Learning are:

over ECRI (in the form of letters to Con-gressmen, the former U.S. Office of Edu-cation and the present U.S. Departmentof Education, and to high officials in theWhite House) to have resulted in a re-evaluation of ECRI, Project INSTRUCTand other similar totalitarian MasteryLearning programs, especially sinceBOTH parents and respected educatorshave protested their continued develop-ment and use. Not so. In fact, a U.S. De-partment of Education, memorandum toSecretary Bell dated October 5, 1982,states,

“President Reagan is scheduled tovisit P.S. 48, an elementary school inthe Bronx, New York City. Duringhis visit the President will meet Dr.Ethna Reid, Director of the ExemplaryCenter for Reading Instruction, aprogram in the National DiffusionNetwork. Dr. Reid will be at P.S. 48 totrain staff members in the use of ECRI.”

Whether the president, a very busy man,met with Dr. Reid or not, is insignificant.What IS highly significant, however, isWHY this extraordinary effort was madeto introduce the President of the UnitedStates to Dr. Ethna Reid of Utah.

————— ▼ —————

GOAL IS TO PUT SKINNERIANMASTERY LEARNING IN “ALL

SCHOOLS OF THE NATION”

Although fifteen years of research onAmerican miseducation has left me vir-tually shockproof, a copy of a $152,530Grant Application No. 84:122B, submit-ted by the Far West Laboratory for Edu-cational Research and Development tothe U.S. Department of Education, whichwas subsequently approved for funding,pulled the rug out from under any slimhopes I held for intellectual freedom inAmerica.

This grant application entitled “Excel-lence in Instructional Delivery Systems:Research and Dissemination of ExemplaryOutcome-based Programs,” and its equallyimportant slick “Appendix A” entitled“Excellence in Our Schools—Making It


“Extra: whole agenda of accultura-tion, social roles, social integration,get the kids to participate in thesocial unit, affective” [inculcation ofattitudes, values, beliefs—Ed.]

And

“Hidden: a system of supervisionand control which restrains behaviorof kids; the outcome of the hiddenagenda should be the fostering ofsocial responsibility or compliance.”15

So if our Johnny or Mary do not fit inthe internationalist social engineers’definition of “socially responsible,” or donot have the “correct” pre-determined“character traits,” they will be forced to“comply” through the use of behaviormodification techniques. Of course, tothe educationists, social engineers, andbehavioral scientists, this is perfectlyethical since your children are nothingbut human animals with no free will,souls, intellects or consciences. To thesocial engineers, they are the propertyof society, not the responsibility of thefamily. They are to be conditioned andtrained like Pavlov’s dogs, as waspointed out by Professor Allen Cohen,at a Mastery Learning conference he ledin Maine, when he referred to our childrenat least four times as “human animals.”16

When is the U.S. Department of Educa-tion going to stop wasting our moneyon research, development, and dissemi-nation of projects which collectivelyhammer the last nails into the coffins oflocal control and intellectual and aca-demic freedom, and which promote anational/international Outcome-basedMastery Learning education system re-flecting the so-called “New Basics”?

————— ▼ —————

ARE THE “NEW BASICS”WHAT YOU THINK THEY ARE?

Harold G. Shane, writing in the Septem-ber, 1976 Phi Delta Kappan, describes hisversion of the “new and additional basicskills,” which is accepted by leaders in theeducation/reform/effective school move-ment, when he says,

“Certainly, cross-cultural under-standing and empathy have becomefundamental skills, as have the skillsof human relations and interculturalrapport…the arts of compromiseand reconciliation, of consensusbuilding, and of planning forinterdependence become basic…”[Emphasis added]

Shane also said,

“As young people mature we musthelp them develop…a service ethicwhich is geared toward the realworld…the global servant conceptin which we will educate our youngfor planetary service and eventuallyfor some form of world citizenship… implicit within the ‘globalservant’ concept are the moralinsights” [through values clarification,i.e., higher order critical thinking skills,discussed later—Ed.] “that will helpus live with the regulated freedomwe must eventually impose uponourselves.”17

————— ▼ —————

MARYLAND CALLSFOR MANDATORY

COMMUNITY SERVICE

Perhaps this is what Ernest Boyer, Presi-dent of the Carnegie Foundation for theAdvancement of Teaching and formerU.S. Commissioner of Education, meanswhen he recommends in his highly ac-claimed book HIGH SCHOOL, “volun-tary community service as a graduationrequirement.”

Fellow member of the Carnegie Foun-dation Board, David Hornbeck, the StateSuperintendent of Maryland’s PublicSchools, in testimony before the Mary-land State Board of Education attempt-ing to “mandate community service atstate-approved places,” quoted Mr. Boyeras saying “in the end the goal of servicein the schools is to teach values—to helpall students understand that to be fullyhuman, one must serve.”18 [Emphasisadded]

————— ▼ —————

EDUCATOR ADMITSHIGHER ORDER SKILLS

ARE VALUES CLARIFICATION

Robert G. Scanlon, former PennsylvaniaSecretary of Education, in A CURRICU-LUM FOR PERSONALIZED EDUCA-TION, said in 1974, “The emphasis inschools in 1985 will be to free the indi-vidual from subject matter as bodies ofknowledge and provide him or her withhigher order skills…One type (is) valuesclarification.”19 [Emphasis added]

Education in 1985, although orches-trated by the education social changeagents for the President, congress, statelegislators, governors, school boardmembers and grassroots’ consumptionas “back to basics, excellence, account-ability, equity, and effective schools,”consists of exactly what Scanlon pre-dicted: more values clarification, but thistime around cloaked in the innocent-sounding “reasoning and higher order criti-cal thinking skills” robe.

Who could possibly object to somethingwhich sounds so sensible, so necessary,so long overdue? The education changeagents are such masters at semantic de-ception (using familiar words andphrases, which mean something accept-able or desirable to you, but which tothem have an entirely different meaningor purpose) that even I, as a School Boardmember, was on occasion led down thegarden path.

The Far West Laboratory grant proposaltakes the words right out of Mr.Scanlon’s mouth when it states that “The‘basics’ in our educational system mustinclude higher-order reasoning skillsand all aspects of the curriculum shoulddeliberately enhance these capacities.”20

[Emphasis added]

————— ▼ —————

CRITICAL THINKING ONEDUCATORS’ AGENDA SINCE 1941

Higher order reasoning skills is just an-other deceptive term for higher ordercritical thinking skills, a values-chang-


ing area in the curriculum which is re-ceiving much attention in 1985, althoughresearch on the subject dates back to Dr.Edward Glaser’s classic study entitledAn Experiment in the Development ofCritical Thinking, 1941.

TEACHING PUBLIC ISSUES IN THEHIGH SCHOOL, 1966, says,

“Glaser administered a question-naire to assess the ‘happiness’ oremotional satisfaction of studentswho participated in a criticalthinking experiment, and relatedtheir responses to gain in criticalthinking. The questionnaire con-tained such items as these: Do youregard yourself as religious? Do youfeel appreciated by your family? Doyou feel satisfactory adjustment tothe opposite sex? He found thatstudents who made the greater gainsin critical thinking more consistentlyanswered ‘no’ to such questions thanthose who made smaller gains.Glaser comments: ‘This finding mayperhaps be explained on the groundthat the pupils, who gained the mostin critical thinking scores were, as agroup, also found to be intellectuallysuperior to those who gainedleast’.”21

Glaser’s comment provides much foodfor thought, especially for parents withchildren in gifted and talented pro-grams!

————— ▼ —————

INTERNATIONALISTS WANT“NEW VALUES MODIFYING

EXISTING BELIEFS”

According to the March/April 1981 is-sue of Human Intelligence InternationalNewsletter, critical thinking skills re-search is taking place within the UnitedNations Educational Scientific CulturalOrganization (UNESCO), the Office ofEconomic Cooperation and Develop-ment (OECD), and the World Bankwhich plans on “increasing the Bank’sinternational lending for education andtraining to about $900 million a year.”22

The Department of Education’s NationalInstitute of Education, possibly in re-sponse to a meeting Luis AlbertoMachado, the Venezuelan Minister forHuman Intelligence, had with formerSecretary of Education Terrel Bell andvarious senators to update them on theprogress of his nation’s work in humanintelligence, “has awarded a three-yearcontract totaling approximately $780,000[of your tax money—Ed.] to Bolt, Beranekand Newman, Inc. of Cambridge, Mas-sachusetts to analyze current programsof instruction on cognitive skills.”23

For an understanding of what research onhuman intelligence encompasses let mequote from the July/October 1981 issueof the Human Intelligence InternationalNewsletter:

“The search for new referentialsystems and new values modifyingexisting beliefs should be based onmodern microbiology. A scientificapproach should be free fromdoctrinal bias, and its findingsapplicable to all mankind. Ideologi-cal confrontations between East andWest, Marxism and Liberalism,Arabs and Jews do have economic,historical and political bases, but nobiological basis. These antagonismshave been created by the humanbrain and could be solved by thewiser brains of future man…”24

————— ▼ —————

WASHINGTON STATELEGISLATURE PUSHING

FOR OFFICE OFHUMAN INTELLECT

A good example of Americans jumpingon the “thinking skills” bandwagon, notrealizing that this old gimmick, dustedoff for the eighties, does not teach stu-dents “how” to think, but “what to think,is Senate Bill 3421 before the State ofWashington Legislature, the purpose ofwhich is to “establish a state-wide officefor the enhancement of human intellectwhich will work with the state board ofeducation, the superintendent of publicinstruction, school districts…” etc.

The bill says “The ability to reason, solveproblems, think critically, exercise inde-pendent judgment, and perform otherintellectual functions at higher levels canbe enhanced in every person; …Thecommunity human intelligence projectand the applied thinking skills projectin Santa Barbara, California, and the na-tionwide intelligence project in Venezu-ela have shown good results with prom-ising social and educational benefits.”25

I understand the substitute bill removedreference to Venezuela!

————— ▼ —————

SAME SOCIAL ENGINEERSCALLED ON TO HELP DEVELOP

THINKING SKILLS CURRICULUM

An article entitled “Improving ThinkSkills—Defining the Problem,” in theMarch 1984 issue of Phi Delta Kappan,also strips this “new” area of the curricu-lum of the “innocent” definition giveninterested citizens who attend schoolboard meetings. It says “The work ofsuch scholars as Hilda Taba, Louis Raths,and Benjamin Bloom could serve as astarting point for this task.” (specifyingthe cognitive components of manythinking skills.) 26

Taba, who came to the U.S. from Esto-nia, is well-known for her controversial25-year-old federally-funded criticalthinking program which includes pri-vacy-invading, values-changing jour-nals (personal diaries), wishing wells,open-ended sentences, role playing (psy-chodrama), etc.,. ALL “psychologicaltreatments” used for political and socialindoctrination, the use of which requiresprior informed parental consent underthe 1978 federal Protection of PupilRights Amendment. Raths, in his impor-tant book VALUES AND TEACHING, saysthat in some situations students “mayhave more freedom to be dishonest.”27

(In 1957 a California State Senate Inves-tigative Committee exposed the work ofTaba, Jacob Moreno, etc.,. In spite of thisexposure, these people continued to re-ceive tax dollars and access to schoolsnationwide.)


————— ▼ —————

BLOOM’S DEFINITIONS OF PURPOSEOF EDUCATION AND TEACHING

EXPLAIN DECLINE IN TEST SCORES

Professor Benjamin Bloom of the Univer-sity of Chicago, father of Skinnerian Out-come-based Mastery Learning (the sub-ject of the Far West Laboratory grant)says in his recent book ALL OUR CHIL-DREN LEARNING that “the purpose ofeducation and the schools is to changethe thoughts, feelings and actions of stu-dents.”28 and in his TAXONOMY OFEDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES, uponwhich Mastery Learning and the goalsand objectives used across the countryare based, defines good teaching as“challenging the students’ fixed beliefs.”29

————— ▼ —————

K-12 CURRICULUMFOR CITIZENSHIP IN ONE

WORLD GOVERNMENT

An interdisciplinary curriculum, reflect-ing the “New Basics” (nuclear, peace,global, multi-cultural, law-related, giftedand talented, career, suicide, sex, drugand alcohol, values, citizenship, charac-ter, community, comparative religions,computer literacy, music to be used forpurposes of hypnosis to change values,art and critical thinking education), allof which will be infused throughout thecurriculum (not necessarily found in aspecific course), is necessary for “will-ing” or at least “passive” citizenship ina socialist one world government sched-uled by the internationalists in educa-tion, and in some multinational corpo-rations and tax-exempt foundations forthe early 21st century. (Hence the bigpush in all states to get their K-12 Goalsand Objectives in place.)

The federally-funded Council of ChiefState School Officers, which restricts itsmembership to the 50 state Superinten-dents of Instruction, supports all of theabove components of the “New Basics”and has recently come out in support ofa national achievement test, whichmakes sense if national and internationaleducation policy is for ALL students to

master international, federal, and foun-dation-funded pre-determined goalsand objectives in the “New Basics” be-ing promoted by the Chief State SchoolOfficers at state legislative hearingsacross the nation.

————— ▼ —————

NORTH CAROLINASUPERINTENDENT DENIES OFFICIALS

ACCESS TO COMPETENCIES

Unreported by the major media is thefact that the North Carolina Superinten-dent of Public Instruction, Craig Phillips,exhibiting understandable paranoiaover the possibility of parents, membersof the North Carolina State Board ofEducation, and legislators finding outwhich competencies (behavioral objec-tives) North Carolina’s children wouldhave to master, initially refused to givecopies of the 6,000 K-12 Basic EducationCompetencies to the above-mentionedindividuals. It should not go unnoticedthat this monstrosity would cost, at aminimum, three billion dollars over aneight year period.

Only the threat of a lawsuit by BobWindsor, the gutsy editor of the NorthCarolina Landmark, and pressure fromelected officials and parents, forcedPhillips to cave in and provide copies tothe public. The educators’ “end justifiesthe means” code of ethics prevails inNorth Carolina: Get the bill passed comehell or high water by denying the citi-zens and legislators access to the contro-versial competencies (objectives), someof which are:

Fifth grade: “Develop a flag, seal,symbol, pledge and/or nationalanthem for a new country; Design apostage stamp to be used world-wide. The stamp should denotewhat the world would need to makeit a better place;”

Sixth grade: “Draw national symbolfor an imaginary nation;”

Seventh grade: “Understand theneed for interdependence;”

Ninth grade: “Write a constitutionfor a perfect society.”30

The shocking tactics used in North Caro-lina should alert citizens in other statesto the ends the educational establish-ment will go to get its one world gov-ernment competencies (objectives) ap-proved by all 50 state legislatures underthe guise of “effective schools, basicskills, accountability and excellence” re-form. For information regarding the epi-sode in North Carolina, contact AnnFrazier, 220 Vincent Road, Roanoke Rap-ids NC 27870 who has spearheaded theNorth Carolina movement for parents’rights in education.

————— ▼ —————

U.S. DEPARTMENT OFEDUCATION FUNDS USED TO

CONTROL TEXTBOOK CONTENT

The content of local education must nec-essarily be designed to match the ques-tions on the forthcoming nationalachievement test. The U.S. Departmentof Education, in obvious anticipation ofsuch a national achievement test, hasrecently awarded Grant No. 122BH inthe amount of $143,366 of your taxmoney to the Council of Chief StateSchool Officers to conduct a “Textbookand Instructional Materials Project.”31

The grant proposal makes very clear thatthe federal government intends to usethe Council of Chief State School Offic-ers and its same old education associationcronies, as it did with the controversialmillion dollar 1981 Project Best (BasicEducation Skills Through Technology)grant to the Association of EducationalCommunication and Technology (for-merly closely associated with the NEA),to control the content of and selectionprocess for instructional materials.32

————— ▼ —————

NATIONAL CURRICULUMALMOST IN PLACE

The match between content of curricu-lum and questions on the state assess-ments and proposed national achieve-ment test will constitute a national cur-riculum long in the making. A 1980 Na-tional Institute of Education briefing


paper entitled “International and For-eign Language Education: A Summaryof Existing and Past Activities at theNIE,” states,

“The Northwest Regional Educa-tional Laboratory (NWREL) con-ducts research and policy studiesand provides technical assistance,evaluation services, and in-serviceteacher training—all in the area ofinternational education. NWRELalso participates in cooperativeinternational projects bearing oninternational education by perform-ing research, materials development,and dissemination through thePacific Circle Consortium of theOffice of Economic Cooperation andDevelopment, the UNESCO LifelongLearning Consortium and the PacificNorthwest International/Intercul-tural Education Consortium (consist-ing of colleges and communitycolleges, school districts, andeducation associations and authori-ties in Alaska, Oregon, Washington,and British Columbia).”33

Obtain SCHOOLING FOR A GLOBALAGE if you want to understand wherethe global educators are coming from.SCHOOLING FOR A GLOBAL AGEreceived funding from the National In-stitute of Education and tax-exemptfoundations, so you helped pay for thisbook which is a most important resourceon global education for administrators,curriculum coordinators, and classroomteachers.

The Department of Education’s Office ofEducational Research and Improvementis deeply involved in the activities of theCenter for Educational Research and In-novation (CERI) attached to the OECDin Paris, France. CERI’s InternationalSchool Improvement Project (ISIP) helda conference in Palm Beach, Florida in1982, at which many of the key compo-nents of the United States’ education re-form movement (effective schools move-ment) were discussed by delegates frommember countries.34

————— ▼ —————

OECD STATES NEED TOTRANSPORT SOFTWARE

ACROSS NATIONAL BOUNDARIES

At an OECD Conference in Paris in July1984, two hundred delegates, observers,and experts from 24 member countries,including the United States, “focused onthe use of new information technology,especially the computer.” One of theworking groups’ principal recommenda-tions was that the “OECD act to assist inthe development and establishment ofinternational standards for the ex-change of courseware authoring sys-tems … There was wide spread interestamong country delegates about themeans…to reduce the legal and tech-nical barriers that inhibit the transport-ability of software products across na-tional boundaries.”35 [Emphasis added]

————— ▼ —————

MASTERY LEARNINGTO BE USED WORLD-WIDE

That Mastery Learning and Teaching,the system to facilitate indoctrination inthe “New Basics,” is being implementedon an international scale, vital for thefuture international curriculum, is madecrystal clear by Benjamin Bloom whenhe says in ALL OUR CHILDRENLEARNING, “In an attempt to maximizecurriculum effectiveness…curriculumcenters throughout the world have be-gun to incorporate learning-for-masteryinstructional strategies into the redesignof curriculum.”36

Bloom’s close associate, Canadian-bornProfessor John Goodlad, enlarges on thesubject of international curriculum in hisbook CURRICULUM INQUIRY.Goodlad, probably the most importantchange agent in the nation, served on thegoverning board of UNESCO’s Institutefor Education, 1971—, and is best knownfor his complaint in 1970 that “mostyouth still hold the same values as theirparents and if we don’t resocialize, oursystem will decay,”37 and more recentlyin the Preface to SCHOOLING FOR A

GLOBAL AGE, 1980, for his recommen-dation that “Parents and the generalpublic must be reached also [taught a glo-bal perspective—Ed.]. Otherwise, childrenand youth enrolled in globally orientedprograms may find themselves in con-flict with values assumed in the home.And then the educational institution fre-quently comes under scrutiny and mustpull back.” 38

This recommendation explains the cur-rent priority of the U.S. Department ofEducation and the community in part-nerships with government schools, ig-noring the fact that parents have primeresponsibility for their children’s educa-tion. Goodlad was a keynote speaker atformer Secretary Terrel Bell’s first meet-ing of the highly publicized NationalCommission on Excellence which pro-duced the publication “A Nation atRisk”—which ignored issues of mostconcern to parents—but neverthelesslulled the nation into a phony and ex-pensive “back to basics/local control”coma.

SCHOOLING FOR A GLOBAL AGE isone of three controversial books pub-lished as a result of Goodlad’s federallyand foundation-funded A Study ofSchooling. The Danforth Foundation,which helped fund SCHOOLING FORA GLOBAL AGE, has just had its VicePresident, John Ervin, elected Chairmanof the National Council for EffectiveSchools (connected with Kelwynn, Inc.and The Effective School Report men-tioned earlier) which are pushing Out-come-based Mastery Learning andTeaching nationwide.

In CURRICULUM INQUIRY Goodladimplicates Bloom, Ralph Tyler (the fatherof educational evaluation) and himself inthe promotion of Mastery Learning andTeaching on an international scale whenhe says that “Bloom was invited byUNESCO in 1968 to submit a proposalfor a six to nine week training programwhich would partially fulfill recommen-dations made at UNESCO’s Moscowmeeting dealing with the formation of


national centers for curriculum develop-ment and research” and that “his pro-gram was ultimately approved by theUNESCO General Council,” and “the In-ternational Association for Evaluation ofEducational Achievement (IAEEA) wasinvited to take full responsibility for de-veloping and conducting programs in1971 at Granna, Sweden.”39

————— ▼ —————

INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUSON WHAT IS WORTH LEARNING

The IAEEA, according to Bloom, “is anorganization of 22 national research cen-ters which are engaged in the study ofeducation … This group has been con-cerned with the use of international tests,questionnaires, and other methods torelate student achievement and attitudesto instructional, social and economic fac-tors in each nation. The evaluation in-struments also represent an interna-tional consensus on the knowledge andobjectives most worth learning.”40 [Em-phasis added]

The U.S. Department of Education,through its National institute of Educa-tion, contributes to the funding of thesecross-national studies, so you, the tax-payer, are paying for an “internationalconsensus on the knowledge and objec-tives most worth learning.”

Goodlad’s CURRICULUM INQUIRY,says “Several Americans, includingBloom, Goodlad, and Ralph Tyler servedon the faculty … We planned to identifythe extent to which each nation’s curricu-lum center was involved in the kinds ofcurricular activities identified by Tyler,”and then it defines some of the impor-tant components of Mastery Learning:“formulating goals and objectives, plan-ning and selecting learning opportuni-ties, organizing learning activities, andevaluating students’ progress,”41 all ofwhich sound innocent and desirableunless one is familiar with the curricu-lar activities related to the “New Basics”described in this book, and the use ofSkinner’s teaching machine (MasteryLearning and Mastery Teaching assisted

by the computer) to indoctrinate stu-dents in international, federal, state andfoundation funded predetermined be-havioral objectives (correct answers).

————— ▼ —————

NO ONE WILL GETBETWEEN YOUR CHILD

AND THAT CURRICULUM

Mastery Learning is based on thepremise that virtually all students canlearn if they are given the time and helpthey need. In other words, if your childdoesn’t agree that the Soviet occupationof Eastern Europe after World War II was“primarily a result of the Soviet Union’sdesire for security along its borders” (the“correct” multiple choice answer to aquestion in Maine’s Assessment ofProgress test item bank – most statesnow have similar partially federally-funded assessment programs and com-puterized test item banks), he will berecycled and remediated, using all thetime, help, and resources necessary, un-til like a little robot, he spits out the “cor-rect” answer.

Even more shocking is a performance in-dicator taken from Missouri’s Educa-tional Objectives, Grade Twelve:

“Given a description of an individualwith a debased character, such as achild murderer or a person who hasset fire to an inhabited building,students should reject suggestionsfor punishment which would detractfrom the dignity of the prisoner …”

Aside from the above totalitarian impli-cations of Mastery Learning, considerhow your taxes will skyrocket in orderto pay for an education system which,according to Bloom, is determined, nomatter how long it takes, to successfully“challenge student’s fixed beliefs.” Suchbelief manipulation will be assisted bycomputer courseware as forecast byDustin Heuston of Utah’s World Insti-tute for Computer-Assisted Teaching(WICAT) when he said,

“We’ve been absolutely staggered byrealizing that the computer has the

capability to act as if it were ten ofthe top psychologists working withone student … You’ve seen the tip ofthe iceberg. Won’t it be wonderfulwhen the child in the smallestcountry in the most distant area or inthe most confused urban setting canhave the equivalent of the finestschool in the world on that terminaland no one can get between thatchild and that curriculum? We havegreat moments coming in the historyof education.”42 [Emphasis added]

WICAT has joined with the multina-tional corporation Control Data to formPLATO/WICAT Systems Company. Ac-cording to its brochure,

“The merger brings together themost advanced, far-reaching educa-tional delivery system for the K-12public and private markets. PLATO/WICAT Systems Co. approach is thesystematic application of computersto furnish individualized instructionand to manage the learning processfor each student in the classroom.…” [Emphasis added]

And,“By addressing the individual needsof more students, PLATO/WICATSystems Products help students todevelop higher order thinking skills…”

A paper by Cheryl Samuels of ControlData presented at the Conference onEducational Technology to Improve In-ternational Education, March 24-25,1982, illustrates the importance ControlData places on Mastery Learning andManagement by Objectives on an inter-national scale. It says,

“Concepts of mastery learning andmanagement by objectives are likelyto be very attractive to educators indeveloping countries. Once theseeducators have made the mentaltransition to learner centerededucational planning, then they canbe more receptive to procedures forspecifying and analyzing objectivesand then for organizing a teaching/


learning plan, providing for learnerassessment, and evaluation of theinstructional plan based on thoseobjectives.”43

————— ▼ —————

EDUCATORS COMPLAINTHAT STUDENTS’ PRIOR

CONCEPTIONS ARE OBSTACLESTO NEW LEARNING

That not only Bloom and Heuston, butothers, intend to “challenge students’fixed beliefs” is made clear in a U.S. De-partment of education publication en-titled “Computers in Education: Realiz-ing the Potential,” June, 1983. Under asubtitle “Expert and Novice Thinking”the authors say,

“Recent studies in science educationhave revealed that students approachlearning with many prior conceptionsbased on their life experiences, whichcan be obstacles to learning. Theseconceptions are very resistant tochange. We need to understand whystudents’ conceptions persevere sostrongly and how they can best bemodified.”44 [Emphasis added]

They probably mean conceptions (fixedbeliefs such as not believing they are de-scended from apes upon which the be-haviorists’ education system is based).Wouldn’t it be more efficient and lesscostly for the taxpayers if we just turnedour children over to the educators atbirth so that their “conceptions” will notreflect our old-fashioned values, atti-tudes and beliefs?

————— ▼ —————

TEACHERS NEED TO BERETRAINED TO FOCUSON INDIVIDUAL NEEDS

The retraining of teachers to be learner-centered (training in how to arrange theenvironment and to manipulate indi-vidual students, using positive andnegative reinforcement, etc., in order toelicit “correct” behaviors/responses,and “socially responsible and compliantbehavior as promoted by Skinner, Spady,Corrigan, et al), is evidently a criteria of

would be required to have individualeducation plans; and his logical fear thatthe parental consent provision for spe-cial education students might be re-quired for ALL students, thereby open-ing up a can of worms far more threat-ening to the education establishmentthan the present Protection of PupilRights Amendment: ALL parents hav-ing the right to review ALL educationalmaterials and methods and to withholdconsent for subjection of their childrento computerized individual educationplans and objectionable methods andprograms?

————— ▼ —————

TEACHERS WHORESIST RETRAINING

WON’T RECEIVE MERIT PAY

Scanlon’s prediction in 1974 about “free-ing the individual from subject matter”has come true in Kennebunk where“teachers need to be retrained to focuson individual needs rather than on con-tent areas.” I hope my reader will studythe Kennebunk quote since it reflects ac-curately what the schools are doing notonly to our children, but also to our goodteachers, in order for the schools to be“recognized” (rewarded) by the U.S. De-partment of Education. You can be surethat teachers who resist such re-trainingwill not receive merit pay, nor will theyrise on the much-touted career ladders,implementation of which are beingfunded by the U.S. Secretary of Education’sDiscretionary Fund (multi-million dol-lar slush fund that focuses on implemen-tation of priority federal policies andprograms affecting our local schools.)

————— ▼ —————

TEACHERS ARE WAKING UP!

Subject matter teachers do not want tobecome personal guidance counselors(unlicensed psychologists) or facilitatorsof political and social indoctrination.(Researchers at a recent conference of theAmerican Education Research Associa-tion who said “Writing can be used toclarify students’ values and even alter

the U.S. Department of Education’s Sec-ondary School Recognition Program.

A government publication, Profiles in Ex-cellence, 1982-1983, Secondary School Rec-ognition Program, a Resource Guide, liststhe Kennebunk, Maine High School asone which schools across the nation maywish to emulate. (The school itself statesin another publication that the school’sprogram may become a national model.)

The Guide states “The major goal of theschool’s curriculum is to individualizethe learning process for the student. Thedistrict is in the process of developing adata bank for students and a testing pro-gram for determining expectancy in-structional levels for each student. Oncethis is in place, staff will develop an In-dividual Education Plan (IEP) for eachstudent to meet individual needs. Themajor difficulty the school is encounter-ing in implementing this new processis the secondary staff who are trained assubject matter teachers.” (Meaning:those good teachers your children havewho teach them grammar, math, andhistory!) “Teachers need to be retrainedto focus on individual needs rather thanon content areas.”45 [Emphasis added]

————— ▼ —————

SECRETARY BELL KNEWALL STUDENTS WOULD HAVE IEP’S

In Kennebunk, the special educationstaff (teachers of the handicapped) aretraining the regular classroom teachers(teachers of the non-handicapped) inhow to develop individual educationplans for regular classroom students.Since federal special education law re-quires parental consent in the develop-ment of IEPs and future plans seem tocall for computerized IEPs and manage-ment systems for ALL students acrossthe nation, it would be discriminatorynot to include ALL students under theparental consent requirement.

Could former Secretary Bell’s efforts in1981 to eliminate the parental consent re-quirement for special education studentshave had anything to do with his knowl-edge that in the future ALL students


their views on controversial subjects”were challenged by other educators whosaid “they were concerned that teachershave the power to alter students’ valuesand it can be dangerous when we knowthat educators have the power to influ-ence kids’ minds.”46 I say to those edu-cators, RIGHT ON! Better late thannever!

————— ▼ —————

TOTAL ACCOUNTABILITY(CONTROL) NOT YETINSTITUTIONALIZED

The present absence of an Outcome-based Mastery Learning and Teachingsystem, “institutionalized in all schoolsof the nation” allows the “reform” com-ponents in the K-12 experience describedin this book to remain disorganized andsubject to teacher censorship and inde-pendence (not conforming to theschool’s new objectives or methods) andstudents escape from mastery (indoctri-nation) in the “New Basics.”

Currently, the educationists’ goals areimplemented on a “hit or miss” basissince the “total” accountability system,so necessary for international and na-tional planning, has not yet been insti-tutionalized. This hit or miss aspect, plusschool boards who refuse to install com-puter terminals in individual schoolbuildings and good subject matter-ori-ented teachers who resist implementingthe reforms, are the only reasons whyone still finds students who are essen-tially literate, who still believe in abso-lute values of right and wrong, and whostill love the United States of Americaand will defend its sovereignty from theassaults of the globalist social engineers.

Good teachers will be the victims of op-erant conditioning, as is blatantly spelledout in an article in the May 1985 issue ofThe Effective School Report entitled“Principals’ Expectations as a Motivat-ing Factor in Effective Schools.” This ar-ticle states in part:

“The principal expects specificbehaviors from particular teachers

which should then translate intoachievement by the students of theseteachers; because of these variedexpectations, the principal behavesdifferently toward different teachers,i.e., body language, verbal interac-tions and resource allocations. Thistreatment also influences theattitudes of the teacher toward theprincipal and their perception of thefuture utility of any increased efforttoward student achievement. If thistreatment is consistent over time,and if the teachers do not resistchange, it will shape their behaviorand through it the achievement oftheir students… With time teachers’behavior, self-concepts of ability,perceptions of future utility, attitudetoward the principal, and students’achievement will conform more andmore closely to the behaviororiginally expected of them.”[Emphasis added] 47 Note the repeateduse of the word “treatment” which isclassic Skinnerian behavior modifi-cation/operant conditioning.

The Effective School Movement, with itsemphasis on so-called “accountability,equity, excellence, and outcomes,” re-quires “new” criteria for teacher certifi-cation: new Skinnerian performance-based teacher evaluation instrumentsbased to a large extent on teacher val-ues, attitudes, and beliefs (affective) cri-teria; constant retraining, i.e.,Kennebunk, to focus on students’ indi-vidual (academic/personal/psychologi-cal) needs, and computer terminals ineach school building to collect and storeinformation on students and teachers foreasy retrieval and constant monitoringand recycling until they exhibit the cor-rect behavior.

Elam Hertzler, Secretary Bell’s top assis-tant in the U.S. Department of Educa-tion, told State Superintendents of In-struction at the annual Washington, D.C.meeting of the Council of Chief StateSchool Officers in 1982:

“One of the elements of an effectiveschool was to monitor, assess, and

feedback … As little as 5 percentof a school budget K-12 would beneeded over a period of 12 years toenable each student to have hisown computer, and this is withinour cost range.”

————— ▼ —————

NO ONE WILL ESCAPESYSTEM’S CONTROL

The movement lacks only the Skinnerian“national learning system” (the purposeof the Far West Laboratory grant andother Mastery Learning grants, includ-ing the NEA Mastery in Learning Projectsupported by the U.S. Department ofEducation’s labs and centers) to lock inthe Mastery Learning and Teaching com-ponents for “New Basics” indoctrinationwhich, in turn will “match” the feder-ally-funded questions on the currentstate and forthcoming national and in-ternational achievement tests. Once thesystem is in place, no one will escape itscontrol, not even private schools, andSkinnerian rewards and awards (posi-tive reinforcement which former Secre-tary Bell prefers to call “incentives”) willbe given to administrators, teachers, stu-dents, businessmen, school board andcommunity members who go along withthe objectives of the national/interna-tional curriculum. Those who resist suchcontrol (retain their individualism) willbe isolated in their schools and commu-nities (negative reinforcement). Watchyour local newspapers for news ofschool boards reducing staff (weedingout those administrators and teacherswho don’t go along). Indications are thatthis is going on right now. Parents andschool board members who don’t goalong will continue to be labeled anti-education and negative.

————— ▼ —————

“VERY FEW OF THEMUNDERSTAND WHAT

THEY’RE BUILDING…”

The educational accountability/man-agement systems such as Planning, Pro-gramming, Budgeting Systems (PPBS)


or Management by (behavioral) Objec-tives (MBO), based on Bloom’s TAX-ONOMY OF EDUCATIONAL OBJEC-TIVES, have been rolling across the na-tion since the early seventies with sup-port in the hundreds of millions of dol-lars from the former U.S. Office of Edu-cation and present U.S. Department ofEducation.

These systems, all of which serve thesame purpose, have been devised to“force schools to discover what they aredoing with their money.” In essence,they call for a school district to come toa conclusion about what educationalgoals it seeks, develop programs to reachthose goals (including teacher trainingand evaluation programs), approve thespending needed, measure the results,readjust programs according to resultsobtained, and recycle students andteachers when necessary in order forthem to exhibit “correct” behaviors. Ifany other system (family, political, eco-nomic, religious, etc.) is in conflict withBloom’s purpose of education and theschools—“to change the thoughts, feel-ings and actions of students” or his defi-nition of good teaching—“challengingthe students’ fixed beliefs,” that systembecomes a problem which stands in theway of the education system’s goals andobjectives. The systems are problem-solving tools which are used not only formeasuring and evaluating the academicstandards of students, but also for mea-suring and evaluating students’ andteachers’ behavior and attitudes.

Utilizing the system’s tools of MBO orPPBS and Bloom’s TAXONOMY, theplanners are able to determine the attitudesof individual students and teachers onspecific issues, as well as their broadoutlook toward life. If their attitudes donot measure up to the pre-determinedinternational, national and state goalsand behavioral objectives, they will berecycled or reprogrammed, using Mas-tery Learning and Mastery Teachingoperant conditioning, until their atti-tudes, feelings and behavior match thegovernment’s goals and objectives.

Dr. Robert Corrigan, a close associate ofProfessor B.F. Skinner, has over the pasttwenty-five years developed such a sys-tem-wide educational engineering or in-dustrial model called S.A.F.E. (System-atic Approach for Effectiveness). It hasbeen endorsed by (among others) Pro-fessor William Spady, the Director of theFar West Laboratory Outcome-basedEducation Project, and Professor HomerCoker of the University of Georgia, whodeveloped, with National Institute ofEducation funds, a controversial stan-dardized teacher evaluation instrumentwith 420 teacher characteristics (compe-tencies)!

A 400 page how-to manual entitled EDU-CATION FOR RESULTS: IN RESPONSETO A NATION AT RISK, describesCorrigan’s federally-funded S.A.F.E.model. On page 155, Corrigan states,

“The following successive phaseswere performed to test out thetheoretical concepts of increasedmastery learning effectiveness:Phase 1. To design and to extensivelyfield-test a group instructionallearning-centered program applyingthose programmed instructionalprinciples postulated by Skinner andCrowder to be combined with thetechniques of System Analysis forinstalling required system-widemanaging-for-results processesincluding the accountable perfor-mance by teachers, principals andsupport personnel. This programwould be ‘packaged’ for use byteachers to deliver predictableachievement of defined mastery-learning objectives…”48

Florida’s Associate Commissioner ofEducation, Cecil Golden, said in regardto these systems and those implement-ing them,

“…and, like those assembling anatom bomb, very few of themunderstand exactly what they’rebuilding, and won’t until we put allthe parts together.”49

————— ▼ —————

MASTERY LEARNINGPLUGS INTO MBO LIKE A

HAND SLIPS INTO A GLOVE

The Far West Laboratory grant to putOutcome-based (Results Based) MasteryLearning, which plugs into PPBS, MBOor SAFE like a hand slips into a glove,into “all schools of the nation,” was wait-ing in the wings until almost all stateshad implemented PPBS, MBO, SAFE orwhatever else the educators call theirmanagement/accountability system,had their computer terminals on line,and had mandated their goals for edu-cation, specifying certain behavioral ob-jectives, skills, and attitudes necessaryfor promotion from level to level and forgraduation.

————— ▼ —————

FEDERALLY-FUNDEDGOALS COLLECTION BLATANTLY

DECLARES WHAT WILL TAKE PLACEIN THE NEXT TWENTY YEARS

Although local citizens are assuredTHEIR goals and objectives were deter-mined LOCALLY, evidence proves oth-erwise. One important partially feder-ally-funded COURSE GOALS COL-LECTION has been disseminated toschool districts across the nation over thepast ten years by the U.S. Departmentof Education’s Northwest Regional Edu-cational Laboratory (one of the labs co-operating with the NEA on its Masteryin Learning Project.)

According to the price list for this col-lection, 70,000 copies are currently in usethroughout the United States, a factwhich is highly significant, since thereare only 16,000 school districts in thenation. The collection consists of four-teen volumes with 15,000 goals cover-ing every major subject taught in thepublic schools from kindergartenthrough grade twelve.

This GOALS COLLECTION, which isbased on “the theoretical work of Bloom,Tyler, Gagne, Piaget, Krathwohl,Walbesser, Mager, and others,” blatantly



recommends the use of Mastery Learn-ing when it says “The K-12 Goals Col-lection provides a resource for develop-ing diagnostic-prescriptive MasteryLearning approaches, both programmedand teacher managed;” the use of MBO/PPBS when it says, “Perhaps the great-est need addressed by the project is fora sound basis for accountability in edu-cation … assistance such as Planning,Program Budget, and Management sys-tems or even general concepts such asManagement by Objectives;…” and theuse of Values Clarification when it says“Value goals of two types are included:Those related to processes of values clari-fication; secondly, those representingvalues, choices that might be fostered inthe context of the discipline.” It statesunder “Content” there is to be none, aspredicted by Scanlon, since “establishedfacts change, causing many fact-boundcurricula to become obsolete during theapproximately five-year lag betweentheir inception and their wide spreaddissemination, and social mobility andcultural pluralism make it increasinglydifficult to identify the ‘importantfacts’.”50 So what do you teach? Nothing,just clarify values also predicted by Mr.Scanlon in 1974.

————— ▼ —————

THERAPY CONTINUES TO BENAME OF EDUCATION GAME

The Introduction to COURSE GOALSCOLLECTION, from which I havequoted, documents this author’s conten-tion that education has not reversedgears, as Americans are being told at alllevels and by a constant media barrage.The present reforms very simply dealwith how to systematize the controver-sial non-academic “therapy” compo-nents of education which caused ournation to be “at risk” and which, inter-estingly enough, were not even men-tioned in “A Nation at Risk.” Proof ofthis is found in a recent grant applica-tion which was subsequently approvedby the U.S. Department of Education,from the Indian Springs School districtin Justice, Illinois to the U.S. Department

of Education for $80,000 to conduct aproject entitled Computer-Assisted Net-work Systems (C.A.N.S.). The applicationsays, “With the implementation of thisproposal C.A.N.S. teachers and admin-istrators will be afforded the opportunitiesto expend much more time with studentsin the affective domain of learning…” i.e.,attitudes, values, and beliefs education.

————— ▼ —————

ENFORCEMENT OF PUPIL RIGHTSAMENDMENT THREATENS WORLD

GOVERNMENT CURRICULUM

Since the use of many of the controver-sial “therapy” components requires in-formed parental consent under the 1978Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment,it is understandable that the mammotheducation establishment is having hystericsover the recently approved regulationsto enforce the amendment, and is lob-bying the Congress to overturn the law.

If the regulations are strictly enforced,the schools will have to do the unthink-able: let parents and taxpayers in on theirwell-kept federally-funded curriculumresearch, development, and dissemina-tion-across-the nation secrets. Such en-forcement would spell disaster for theirplans to convert our children into advo-cates of the coming socialist one worldgovernment.

————— ▼ —————

GOVERNMENT TOOPERATE THROUGH

SKINNERIAN TECHNIQUES?

Skinner says in TECHNOLOGY OFTEACHING, 1968:

“Absolute power in education is nota serious issue today because itseems out of reach. However, atechnology of teaching will need tobe much more powerful if the racewith catastrophe is to be won, and itmay then, like any powerful technol-ogy, need to be contained. Anappropriate counter control will notbe generated as a revolt againstaversive measures but by a policydesigned to maximize the contribu-

tion which education will make tothe strength of the culture. The issueis important because the govern-ment of the future will probablyoperate mainly through educationaltechniques.”51 [Emphasis added]

The views of Skinner, and others whoauthorize funding of curricula, must bechallenged on all counts. Not only ourchildren, but all the world’s children, forgenerations to come, must be allowed tolive WITH freedom and dignity, notBEYOND FREEDOM AND DIGNITY,as spelled out by Skinner in his book ofthe same title.

————— ▼ —————

CONGRESS WILL ACTIF ENOUGH AMERICANS

DEMAND AN INVESTIGATION

Our government is still “the people’sgovernment, made for the people, by thepeople and answerable to the people.”52

Only the people—each one individually—can turn education around throughpressure on their elected representativesto conduct a congressional investigationof the subversive activities of the U.S.Department of Education AND certaincorporations and tax-exempt foundations.

A 1981 report on the very important fed-erally-funded National Assessment ofEducational Progress by Willard Wirtz(a promoter of MACOS) and ArchieLaPointe, describes the influencewielded by three important foundationswhen it says:

“In a different sense, this report isdesigned to meet the responsibilitiesimposed at least implicitly by thethree foundations which haveinitiated and have supported theproject: The Carnegie Corporation,the Ford Foundation, and theSpencer Foundation.”53

————— ▼ —————

STATE DEPARTMENTSOF EDUCATION MUSTALSO BE ABOLISHED

Such an investigation is essential to jus-


tify the abolition of the U.S. Departmentof Education, its experimental laborato-ries and centers, and eventually, throughstate legislative action, ALL fifty statedepartments of education which arenothing but powerful, federally-fundedclones of the U.S. Department of Educa-tion, clicking their heels in unison at ev-ery federal policy initiative in order tokeep the bucks rolling into their stateeducation coffers.

(The former U.S. Office of Education andpresent U.S. Department of Educationhave over the years provided hundredsof millions of dollars to the state depart-ments of education through their StateCapacity Building grants, the purpose ofwhich is to increase federal control overthe local schools. Even top educatorsnow admit in their learned journals thatthe state departments of education havetotal control over the local schools.)

————— ▼ —————

ONLY YOU CAN SINK THETREACHEROUS ICEBERG

CALLED EDUCATION FORWORLD CITIZENSHIP

For those few who, after reading thisbook, may question the need for suchdrastic action, let me remind them thatthe goings-on described herein consti-tute just the tip of a gigantic and treach-erous international, federal, and founda-tion-funded iceberg labeled Educationfor World Citizenship, as outlined in theNational Education Association’s 1976Bicentennial Program, “Declaration ofInterdependence: Education for a GlobalCommunity” with community definedas “the equitable sharing of like values.”

Whether or not the United States ofAmerica, through citizen preoccupationwith fashion, TV, sports, gourmet cook-ing, jogging, making a living, etc., all ofwhich are perfectly legitimate andworthwhile activities in a “free” society,and lack of understanding of the inter-nationalists’ use of Gradualism andHegelian Philosophy to attain their goals,slides into the totalitarian Black Hole ofa socialist one world government, with

the resulting loss of freedoms our ances-tors fought and died for, depends onwhether YOU, the reader, are convincedthe problems described in this book areserious enough for you to spend a fewminutes writing to your elected officials.

You should send them a copy of thisbook and request from them

(1) the materials related to the grantsand programs described herein;

(2) a Congressional investigation (withbalance in the selection of witnesses)of the U.S. Department of Educationand its labs and centers, and of cer-tain corporations and tax-exemptfoundations which control Americaneducation; and

(3) abolition of the U.S. Department ofEducation and its labs and centers.

Should such an effort prove successful,the next step is to convince your statelegislators to abolish the powerful statedepartments of education since they arenothing but surrogates of the federalDepartment of Education and throughheavy federal funding in the past couldvery likely stand on their own, even ifthe U.S. Department of Education wereabolished.

Also, persuade at least ten friends to takethe same action. Copies of correspon-dence with your elected officials and ofthis book should be sent to PresidentRonald Reagan under cover of a letterrequesting that he honor his 1980 pledgeto the American people to abolish theU.S. Department of Education and thatHE reply to your letter and not send it tothe Department of Education for reply.

If the present situation continues un-checked, by the year 1998 children nowin kindergarten will have been throughthirteen years of Skinnerian world gov-ernment brainwash, under the deceptiveguise of the “New Basics,” you and Imay well no longer be around to vote,and the 18-year-olds may well be ontheir way to vote what historians referto as the greatest experiment in humanfreedom – straight down the tubes.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt served asSpecial Assistant in the Office of Edu-cational Research and Improvement,U.S. Department of Education, 1981-1982, and as a school board memberin Camden, Maine, 1976-1979. She isco-founder of and research analystfor Guardians of Education for Main(GEM). She has also served in theForeign Service (U.S. Department ofState) abroad 1956-1963 and with theAmerican Red Cross overseas dur-ing the Korean War.

Mrs. Iserbyt is a freelance writer whohas had articles published in HumanEvents, The Washington Times, theBangor Daily News, and included inthe record of Congressional hearings.

————— ▼ —————

Back To Basics Reform, Or…OBE*Skinnerian International Curricu-

lum? ©1985 Charlotte T. Iserbyt. Allrights reserved. Second printing1993. Third publishing in 2004

(electronic format) by Charlotte T.Iserbyt, 1062 Washington St., Bath,Maine 04530, 207-442-7899; fax 207-

442-0551; email:[email protected] of Back To Basics Reform is

available at website:www.deliberatedumbingdown.com

————— ▼ —————

Send this information to local schoolboard members, state legislators, U.S.Congressmen and Senators.

Elected officials MUST be informedabout the damaging, dumbing downactivities that state/federal educationreform policies and public tax dol-lars have supported and continue tosupport, all in the name of "account-ability to the corporate/federal gov-ernment partnership", NOT to theparent or local school district.

The unconstitutional U.S. Depart-ment of Education (in partnershipwith the U.S. Department of Labor)must be abolished by legislators.

————— ▼ —————

REFERENCES

1. Skinner, B.F., Science and Human Behavior (NY:Macmillan & Co., 1953.)

2. Evans, Richard I., B.F. Skinner: The Man and His Ideas,(NY: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1968.)

3. Ibid, Preface.

4. Corrigan, Dean, 1969, Speech before 22nd AnnualTeachers Education Conference, University of Geor-gia.

5. Veatch, Jeanette, Professor, letter to Ann Herzer, July1980.

6. Arizona Federation of Teachers’ Resolution, passedat meeting of officers, May 5, 1984.

7. Futrell, Mary, President of National Education As-sociation, signed advertisement carried in EducationWeek and other journals, Spring 1985.

8. Rutherford, James, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Depart-ment of Education, letter to Congressman EldonRudd dated January 19, 1981 (enclosure) p. 6.

9. Corrigan, Dr. Robert E., and Bailey, Dr. George W.,“Effective Schools for Results—Applying ProvenPractices for Effective Schooling Results.” In The Ef-fective School Report, July 1984.

10. Hays, Dick, Acting Assistant Secretary, U.S. Depart-ment of Education, memorandum to Secretary ofEducation Shirley Hufstedler dated March 30, 1980,“Subject: Briefing Memorandum Concerning a Con-troversy with Arizona Congressman Eldon Rudd:Summary.”

11. Carmine, Doug and Becker, Wes, Summary of theNational Evaluation Follow Through Findings, 1970-1976, University of Oregon Direct Instruction Fol-low Through Program, p. 1.

12. Goodman, Kenneth, Professor, Support for Learningand Teaching of English (SLATE) newsletter, March1978, Vol. 3, No. 2 entitled “The President’s Educa-tion Program: A Response.”

13. Senese, Donald, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Departmentof Education, memorandum to Secretary of Educa-tion Terrel Bell, subject: “Report, October 30-Novem-ber 5, 1982.”

14. Burningham, G. Leland, Utah State Superintendentof Instruction, letter to Secretary of Education TerrellBell dated July 27, 1984, supporting Far West Labo-ratory Outcome-based Education grant proposal.

15. Spady, William, Professor, Speech, Mastery Learn-ing conference, U.S. Department of Education, Wash-ington D.C., April 21, 1982.

16. Cohen, Allen, Professor, speech to Maine Associa-tion for Supervision and Curriculum DevelopmentConference, Saco, Maine, 1983; Subject: MasteryLearning. Tape available.

17. Shane, Harold, “America’s Next Twenty-five Years:Some Implications for Education,” in Phi DeltaKappan, September 1976.

18. Hornbeck, David, State Superintendent of MarylandPublic Schools, testimony before Maryland StateBoard of Education supporting mandated commu-nity service, January 25, 1984.

19. Scanlon, Robert G., former Pennsylvania Secretaryof Education and Executive Director, Research forBetter Schools, Philadelphia, PA (NIE laboratory: ACurriculum for Personalized Education (Research forBetter Schools, 1974.)

20. Far West Laboratory for Educational Research andDevelopment, Grant Application to Department ofEducation, Application control Center, ATTN: 84-122B, Washington, D.C. 20202 entitled “Excellencein Instructional Delivery Systems: Research and Dis-semination of Exemplary Outcome-based Pro-grams,” August 1, 1984, p. 1.

21. Shaver, James P., and Oliver, Donald W., TeachingPublic Issues in the High School (Boston: HoughtonMifflin Co., 1966) pp. 305, 306

22. Human Intelligence International Newsletter, P.O. Box1163, Birmingham, Michigan 48012, March/April1981, p. 1.

23. Ibid, p. 1.

24. Delgado, Jose M.R., M.D., Departmento deInvestigacion, Centro “Ramono y Cahal”/Ctra. DeColmenar km 9/Madrid 34, Spain, “Biological Basisof Intelligence and Freedom,” Human IntelligenceInternational Newsletter, P.O. Box 1163, Birmingham,Michigan 48012, July/October 1981, p. 2.

25. Senate Bill 3421, State of Washington, 49th Legisla-ture, 1985 Regular Session.

26. Beyer, Barry K., “Improving Thinking skills, —De-fining the Problem,” in Phi Delta Kappan, March 1984.

27. Raths, Harmin and Simon, Values and Teaching, p. 138.

28. Bloom Benjamin, All Our Children Learning (NY:McGraw Hill Paperbacks, 1981) p. 180.

29. Krathwohl, David, Bloom, Benjamin, and Massia,Bertram, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The Clas-sification of Educational Goals, Handbook II: AffectiveDomain, p. 55.

30. North Carolina Competency-based Curriculum,Basic Education Program, 1985.

31. Council of Chief State School Officers, Grant Appli-cation No. 122BH40183 Department of Education,entitled “Textbook and Instructional MaterialsProject.”

32. “Secretary’s Technology Initiative—Bell’s EducationDepartment Betrays Reagan Policies,” Human Events,May 22, 1982.

33. National Institute of Education briefing paper en-titled “International and Foreign Language Educa-tion: A Summary of Existing and Past Activities atthe National Institute of Education.” No date (ap-proximately 1980) p. 1.

34. Gass, J.R., Organization for Economic Cooperationand Development, Center for Educational Researchand Innovation, 2 Rue Andre-Pascal, 75775 Paris,letter to Donald J. Senese, Assistant Secretary of Edu-cational Research and Improvement, U.S. Depart-ment of Education, dated July 9, 1982.

35. Senese, Donald J., “International Conference Exam-ines Technology in Education,” T.H.E. Journal, Janu-ary 1985, pp. 96-97.

36. Bloom Benjamin, All Our Children Learning (NY:McGraw Hill Paperbacks, 1981) p. 123.

37. Goodlad, John I., “Report of President’s Commissionon School Finance,” Department of Health, Educa-tion and Welfare, 1970.

38. Goodlad, John I., Preface to Schooling for a Global Ageedited by James Becker (NY: McGraw Hill Book Co.,1979.)

39. Goodland, John & Associates, Curriculum Inquiry –The Study of Curriculum Practice (NY: McGraw Hill,1979.)

40. Bloom Benjamin, All Our Children Learning (NY:McGraw Hill Paperbacks, 1981) pp. 33, 35.

41. Goodland, John & Associates, Curriculum Inquiry –The Study of Curriculum Practice (NY: McGraw Hill,1979.)

42. Hueston, Dustin H., “Discussion — Developing thePotential of An Amazing Tool,” Schooling and Tech-nology, Vol. 3, Planning for the Future: A CollaborativeModel, An Interpretive Report on Creative Partnershipsin Technology—An Open Forum published by South-eastern Regional Council for Educational Improve-ment, P.O. Box 12746, 200 Park, Suite 111, ResearchTriangle Park, NC 27709, Ph. 919/549-8216. Grantfrom National Institute of Education, p. 8.

43. Samuels, Cheryl, Control Data, “Dissemination ofSystematic Procedures in Developing Countries,”Conference on Educational Technology to Improve Inter-national Education and Training, March 24, 25, 1982,Arlington, VA, published by the Institute for AppliedLearning Technology, Warrenton, VA, p. 33.

44. Lesgold, Alan M., and Reif, Frederick, Computers inEducation—Realizing the Potential; Chairmen’s Reportof a Research Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, November20-24, 1982, sponsored by U.S. Department of Edu-cation, T.H. Bell, Secretary and Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement, Donald J. Senese, As-sistant Secretary. Published in 1983, for sale by Supt.Of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,Washington, D.C. 20402. No. 1983-381-054:134. Sum-mary, p. 5.

45. Profile in Excellence 1982—1983 Secondary School Rec-ognition Program—A Resource Guide, sponsored byU.S. Department of Education, T.H. Bell, Secretaryof Education, published by Northeast Regional Ex-change, 160 Turnpike Road, Chelmsford, MA, 1984.

46. “Teachers Influence Students’ Values Through Writ-ing Assignments,” Education Daily, April 5, 1985.

47. The Effective School Report, May 1985.

48. Education for Results: In Response to a Nation at Risk,Vol. I, pp 155-156. SAFE Learning Systems Inc., P.O.Box 5089, Anaheim, CA 92804.

49. Golden, Cecil, Florida Associate Commissioner ofEducation, The Ledger, Tallahassee, Florida, July 27,1972.

50. Introduction to K-12 Course Goals Collection, NorthwestRegional Educational Laboratory, 710 S.W. SecondAve., Portland, OR 97294.

51. Skinner, B.F., The Technology of Teaching, 1968, p. 260.

52. Webster, Daniel, Second Speech on Foote’s Resolution,January 26, 1830.

53. Wirtz, Willard and LaPointe, Archie, Foreward, Gal-leys for Measuring the Quality of Education, Copyright1981.


THE SECOND PRINTING OF THIS BOOK WAS DEDICATED TOTWO REMARKABLE AND COURAGEOUS AMERICANS:

ANN HERZER, parent and public school teacher/college professor, whose impec-cable research on Mastery Learning/Outcome-Based Education provided the au-thor and many other concerned Americans with an understanding of the totalitar-ian method by which the “politically correct” brainwash is taking place in the tax-supported government schools of America; And

ANITA HOGE, parent and former teacher, whose intelligence and persistence re-sulted in exposure of the U.S. Department of Education’s long-standing unconsti-tutional/illegal program to mold American students’ values and attitudes—throughprogramming (curriculum development) and assessment (testing)—to conform tothose values and attitudes deemed necessary for world citizenship.

A NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR: Unfortunately, everything predicted in this book hashappened to one degree or another, “OUR BRAINS ARE EMPTY” OBE, OUT-COME-BASED EDUCATION/MASTERY LEARNING has gone international withWilliam Spady (see p. 4) named Director of the International Center on Outcome-Based Restructuring, P.O. Box 1630, Eagle, CO 81631.

————— ▼ —————

1993 UPDATE

The computerized, values-changingSkinnerian (outcome-based) interna-tional curriculum predicted in this bookwritten in 1985 is former President[George H.W.] Bush’s American 2000,referred to by President Clinton as Goals2000. The majority of outcomes on statetests (assessments) now deal with politi-cally-correct attitudes. Critical Thinking,Cooperative Learning and IndividualEducation Plans (No competition,dumb-down, outcome-based/MasteryLearning), testing and retesting (recy-cling) will assure “mastery of politically-correct values and workforce skills re-quired for participation in the globalcommunity, economy, and government.Education will be LIFELONG.

ALL GOALS, OBJECTIVES, OUTCOMES,ETC., EMANATE FROM THE UNITEDNATIONS’ AGENCIES, ESPECIALLY THEUNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL. SCI-ENTIFIC, AND CULTURAL ORGANIZA-TIONS (UNESCO).

When you are told by educators thatOutcome-based Education (OBE) andDirect Instruction is not SkinnerianMastery Learning/Direct Instruction(ML/DI), show them the followingstatement by William Spady, sociolo-gist and international leader in theOBE/ML movement, which appearedin an article entitled “On Outcome-based Education: A Conversation withBill Spady,” Educational Leadership, De-cember 1992/January 1993.

“In January of 1980 we conveneda meeting of 42 people to form theNetwork for Outcome-BasedSchools. Most of the people whowere there—Jim Block, JohnChamplin—had a strong back-ground in mastery learning, sinceit was what OBE was called at thattime. But I pleaded with the groupnot to use the name “MasteryLearning” in the Network’s newname because the word “mastery”had already been destroyed throughpoor implementation…” (Classiccase of semantic deception at workwhich rears its ugly head again in1993 with denials that OBE is ML.)

When you are told by educators thatOBE/ML is not a Skinnerian Dumb-down System of Education, focusingon behavioral change (collectivismvs. individualism), show them the fol-lowing statement by Jim Block,Spady’s co-worker, which appearedin an article by him entitled: “Mas-tery Learning: The Current State ofthe Craft,” Educational Leadership,November 1979.

“One of the striking personalfeatures of mastery learning, forexample, is the degree to which itencourages cooperative individu-alism in student learning asopposed to selfish competition.Just how much room is there leftin the world for individualistswho are more concerned withtheir own performance than theperformance of others. One of thestriking societal features of masterylearning is the degree to which itpresses for a society based on theexcellence of all participants ratherthan one based on the excellenceof a few. Can any society afforduniversal excellence, or must allsocieties make most people incompe-tent so that a few can be competent?”

FIND OUT MOREABOUT THE DUMBING DOWN

OF EDUCATION

the deliberate dumbing down ofamerica ...A Chronological Paper Trail(1999; First printing 1999, Secondprinting 2000, third printing 2001)by Charlotte T. Iserbyt (700 pages,paperback, $47.00 including S/H).

To order, call1-207-442-7899/0543

or go to website:www.deliberatedumbingdown.com

the deliberate dumbing down ofamerica ...A Chronological Paper Trailis into its third printing in fouryears. Barnes & Noble rated "thedeliberate dumbing down of america...A Chronological Paper Trail " No. 1in sales out of 29 titles related toeducation history, USA.

IMPORTANT OBE/ML QUOTES


B to B Reform Iserbyt 17p

Documents

Transcript of B to B Reform Iserbyt 17p