Deliberate Dumbing Down of America Public Education

88

surement that will permit effective evaluation of student and Department of Education per formance. (p. 98)

[Ed. Note: PPBS and MBO are essentially the same as TQM. At a 1992 Total Quality Management (TQM) in Education Conference in St. Paul, Minnesota—sponsored by the National Governors’ Association and attended by the writer—a representative from IBM stated that TQM is a more “sophisticated, refined form of PPBS.”] I N 1969 D ON D AVIES , FORMER D EPUTY C OMMISSIONER OF E DUCATION FOR THE U.S. O FFICE of Edu cation and editor of Communities and Their Schools , wrote “Changing Conditions in American Schools” as part of the “Elementary Teacher Training Models,” a section of the Behavioral Sci ence Teacher Education Program (U.S. Office of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare [developed at Michigan State University under HEW grant]: Washington, D.C., 1969). The following are excerpts from “Changing Conditions in American Schools”: (1) Moving from a mass approach to an individual approach in education; (2) Moving from an emphasis on memorizing to an emphasis on the non-cognitive, non-intellectual components of life; (3) Moving from a concept of a school isolated from the community; (4) Moving from a fear of technology to using machinery and technology for educational purposes; (5) Moving from a negative to a positive attitude towards children who are different; (6) Moving from a provincial perspective of the world in education to a multicultural perspective; (7) Moving from a system characterized by academic snobbery to one which recognizes and nurtures a wide variety of talents and values; and (8) Moving from a system based on serving time to one which emphasizes perfor mance. [Ed. Note: 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 should be familar to the reader. They represent OBE/ML/DI and technology. Numbers 5 and 6 are global education/values education.] P ROFESSOR D EAN C ORRIGAN , IN A 1969 SPEECH BEFORE THE 22 ND A NNUAL T EACHER E DUCA tion Conference at the University of Georgia, predicted that “teaching machines will pace a student’s progress, diagnose his weaknesses and make certain that he understands a fundamental concept before allowing him to advance to the next lesson.” [Ed. Note: Skinner said “computers are essentially sophisticated versions of the teaching machines of the 1960s… programmed learning.” (See Education Week 8/31/83.)] A R EPORT FROM THE S TATE C OMMITTEE ON P UBLIC E DUCATION TO THE C ALIFORNIA S TATE Board of Education—Citizens for the 21st Century—Long-Range Considerations for California Elemen tary and Secondary Education (California State Assembly: Sacramento, California, 1969) was prepared by Professor John I. Goodlad. Funded by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 , the Report states: