DAY 9: Skin­ner Hor­ror Files

HISTORY YOU ARE NOT MEANT TO KNOW!
And par­ents con­tin­ue to mess around fight­ing Com­mu­nist Core? Should­n’t they instead be focus­ing on killing tax-fund­ed fake school “choice” which is the vehi­cle to con­trol not just stu­dents, but adults as well, under UNESCO’s agen­da: Lim­it­ed Learn­ing for Life­long Labor.

What the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment funds the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment con­trols. The result of that is ALL edu­ca­tion, pub­lic, pri­vate, reli­gious, and home­schools will be con­trolled by the inter­na­tion­al (glob­al) and fed­er­al gov­ern­ments. The cor­po­rate fascist/socialist/communist elite are a lot fur­ther down the road than any of us real­ized. Just ask those high up with the Nation­al Alliance of Busi­ness what their goals are. NAB’s Vol 15, Issue 5, May 1998 car­ried a title that should blow us away:

WORK AMERICA
THE BUSINESS FORCE ON WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
KNOWLEDGE SUPPLY CHAIN;
MANAGING K‑80 LEARNING

Repeat that last line: K‑80 LEARNING!!! Lim­it­ed Life­long Labor when you are 80 years old! The his­to­ry of this goes way, way back. Fol­low the dates and fol­low the buzz­word trail…

PROLOGUE: Committing to the Feasible Delivery of Effective Educational Results, by Nolan Estes, prior U.S. Commissioner of Education, University of Texas, Austin…. On April 26, 1983, the National Commission for Excellence in Education presented to President Ronald Reagan A Nation at Risk, a report on the status of quality education in the United States.

This commission was formed by Secretary of Education Dr. Terrel Bell, in August 1981, to evaluate the current status of our national educational system in terms of its overall performance effectiveness; and, where appropriate, to propose changes in policy, practices, and programs to increase the effectiveness of our schools….
The beginning of this reported decline in the performance effectiveness began in the 1960’s. As a Commissioner of Education (1965–1969), along with other Commissioners, we made substantial investments in grants and programs to develop more effective professional practices to replace those then in operation. We concentrated our investments in two major programs, namely:

A. To increase learning effectiveness (mastery scores) for all learners; and

B. To increase the management effectiveness of the delivery system to increase the measured success for learners. [emphasis added]

By now the read­er should rec­og­nize the buzz­words cloak­ing the Skin­ner method — “per­for­mance,” “effec­tive,” “mas­tery,” “suc­cess,” etc. What is going in right now has been planned for many years, cour­tesy of you, the tax­pay­er. While Skin­ner­ian Out­come-Based Education/Mastery Learning/Direct Instruc­tion (OBE/ML/DI) was being pilot­ed on inner-city chil­dren in the USA (one exam­ple: Chica­go Mas­tery Learn­ing dis­as­ter) the US Office of Edu­ca­tion, under instruc­tions from UNESCO, was export­ing it abroad for use by for­eign coun­tries! Appen­dix VI in my book the delib­er­ate dumb­ing down of amer­i­ca out­lines the sig­nif­i­cance of Kore­an edu­ca­tion experiments.

Speak­ing of buzz words, look at the title of this report from 1983: Edu­ca­tion for Results: In Response to A Nation At Risk, Vol.1: Guar­an­tee­ing Effec­tive Per­for­mance by Our Schools by Robert E. Cor­ri­g­an, Ph.D., and Bet­ty O. Cor­ri­g­an (SAFE Learn­ing Sys­tems). This par­tic­u­lar paper was pub­lished for the Rea­gan Administration’s use, and actu­al­ly served as a spring­board for imple­ment­ing OBE. Most of the exper­i­men­ta­tion his­to­ry (pilot OBE/ML/DI) pro­grams, includ­ing one in Korea dis­cussed in this paper, were imple­ment­ed in the 1960s and 1970s. The Edu­ca­tion for Results Project, which basi­cal­ly called for using Corrigan’s Mod­el (mas­tery learn­ing/out­come-based education/management infor­ma­tion sys­tems) had the sup­port of the fol­low­ing twen­ty key edu­ca­tion change agents:

This first sen­tence below says it all. “Mas­tery Learning/ Out­come-Based Pro­grams are not a Utopi­an panacea.” Rather it is a total­i­tar­i­an night­mare. Espe­cial­ly for children.

John R. Cham­plin, “Is Cre­at­ing a Learn­er-Mas­tery Out­come-Based Pro­gram Worth the Extra Effort? A Super­in­ten­den­t’s Per­spec­tive, pub­lished in Project SAFE report.
Don’t be dumb­ed down. Read up on the his­to­ry of Skin­ner’s method, how it rapid­ly became the glob­al mod­el for edu­ca­tion reform. Those sup­port­ing Com­mon Core and/or “choice” hope that you won’t know the his­to­ry behind this method. Here it is in their own words, which con­tin­ues the expla­na­tion that is found in the quot­ed mate­r­i­al above:

Several major multi-million dollar programs were initiated in the 1960’s consistent with the achievement of the goals stated above. The major focus on development of more effective management-for-results practices and application was Operation PEP, State of California. This was a multi-year program involving several hundred senior educational administrators across the state. Dr. Robert E. Corrigan, as director of the training programs, offered to these administrators skills in management-for-results practices encompassed in his “Systematic Approach for Effectiveness” (SAFE). The acceptance of these practices by these senior educational practitioners is evidenced by the fact that they were applied by Title III management centers across the state of California after the federal funds were removed.

A second key thrust by the Department of Education (1965–1968) was to support the development of new teaching practices which would prove more effective in the delivery of success for learners. A major program was funded for the installation of a Teacher Fellowship Program at Chapman College, Orange, California. This program was headed by Dr. Robert E. Corrigan to develop a Masters Degree in Instructional Systems Design (ISD). This developing program focused on the design of a new learning-centered technology developed by the Corrigans to assure predictable mastery by all learners of all relevant skills and knowledge in the curricula offered in our schools.

…In these two volumes presented herein by the Corrigans, you are offered the PROOF of these most effective results-focused practices by many school districts both large and small, both urban and rural, in a variety of areas across our country over a period of 22+ years (1960–1983).

Since the 1960s, these effective management-for-results practices have expanded to include the required use of micro computer management systems to control for the delivery of cost-effective results for learners, for the educational practitioners, and the taxpayers.

To down­load this report, go here and use the search box, type in “SAFE.” A page will pop up with this file on it. Sim­ply click the red “Down­load Now” but­ton to get the full report: