Deliberate Dumbing Down of America Public Education

193 E DUCATION FOR R ESULTS : I N R ESPONSE TO A N ATION AT R ISK , V OL . 1: G UARANTEEING Effective Performance by Our Schools (SAFE Learning Systems, Inc.: Anaheim, Cal., 1983) by Robert Corrigan was published. In its 500-page how-to manual, Corrigan’s S.A.F.E. [Systematic Ap proach for Effectiveness] model was described. Corrigan explains: The following successive phases were performed to test out the theoretical concepts of increased mastery learning effectiveness: Phase 1. To design and to extensively field-test a group instructional learning-centered program applying those programmed instructional principles postulated by Skinner and Crowder to be combined with the techniques of System Analysis for installing required system-wide managing-for-results processes including the accountable performance by teachers, principals and support personnel. This program would be “packaged” for use by teachers to deliver predictable achievement of defined mastery learning objectives. (p. 155) [Ed. Note: This program was endorsed by—among others—Bill Spady (Mr. OBE), the director of the controversial Far West Laboratory Outcome-Based Education Project (the Utah Grant) and Professor Homer Coker of the University of Georgia, who developed—with National Institute of Education funds—a controversial standardized teacher evaluation instrument with 420 teacher characteristics (competencies/behaviors). This book’s Appendix VI contains extensive quotes from this important trail-blazing project.] F ROM THE FIRST NEWSLETTER , O UTCOMES , PUBLISHED BY B ILL S PADY ’ S N ETWORK FOR Outcome Based Schools in 1983, came the article “Four Phases in Creating and Managing an Outcome Based Program” by John Champlin of the Department of Educational Administration of Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas. The fact that mastery learning is outcome-based education is made clear in the following excerpts: “Outcome-Based” was conceived during discussions in 1979 when our attention centered around how Mastery Learning could be better managed and made more likely to survive, despite many ill-conceived design and implementation attempts. Those participating proposed that an advocacy network be established. This founding group of a dozen or so concluded that more support for Mastery Learning would be likely if this new network focused equally on outcomes as well as process. They argued that instructional delivery systems needed to be sufficiently flexible and responsive to produce a wide variety of outcomes, not just the existing limitations of basic skills programs. This decision was considered critical in view of limited success in efforts to operationalize competency-based concepts during the 1970s.... Out of these dialogues emerged the Network for Outcome-Based Schools, a loose configu ration of researchers, teachers, principals, school superintendents and college professors whose goal was to advocate and implement Mastery Learning as a vehicle for producing the capabilities and responses necessary for students to attain varied outcomes. The Network has been a vigorous proponent of all of the identified components of Outcome-Based (OB) programming since its inception.... INITIATE COMMUNITY REEDUCATION AND RENORMING ACTIVITIES—Any new program development absolutely requires provisions to foster community understanding. Many well intended change efforts have fallen upon the rocks because the community didn’t understand it, challenged it, and built up so much pressure that it was easiest for staff to revert to the safe harbor of the status quo. This community effort should be designed both to reeducate and to The "Effective" Eighties : c. 1983