Who Controls at the Local Level?

Who Controls at the Local Level?

I recently received the following query from an individual. These questions have been asked by many parents. My response follows.

Here is something I've long wanted to know: Just what control do public school teachers have over the curriculum they teach and the methods they teach by?

Who determines the curriculum? Is it the legislature? The SPI (Superintendent of Public Instruction)? The school board? The Principal? The teacher?

And ditto for the teaching methodology.

These are good questions, which I shall attempt to answer.

If you ask a state legislator these questions, they will tell you that curriculum is local. Nothing could be further from the truth. But one would not know that unless one understands the system. I shall endeavor to explain.

Education reform is based on systems philosophy or general systems theory. Without getting into specifics, systems philosophy says that we can create our future by building systems and leveraging those systems into balance with all other systems in a conceptually wholistic model, (also referred to as systemic change) using a system infrastructure that is analogous to all systems. Scientists refer to systems philosophy as a syllogism — how to bring about planned change systemically. Under systems philosophy, the system and leveraging of the system into balance with all other systems, is paramount above all else. That leveraging is achieved via analyzing DATA FEEDBACK attained from the subjects of the system established, be it an agency (school), a classroom, or an individual. This explains the privacy invasive databanks being built on all systems — health care, education, justice (law enforcement, criminal, juvenile, drivers…), military… (This is also the weakest point of the system). Systems philosophy is based on humanism and the tenets of it, with the spiritual dimension based in New Age thought and practice.

Under systems philosophy, you start out by developing your vision of the created future. In the case of education reform, that vision is that every child shall exit the education system with mastery of…

the new basic skills — teamwork, critical thinking, making decisions, communication, adapting to change and understanding whole systems. (High Skills, High Wages, Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board, WA State, 1994, page 65).

The vision is then defined in terms of exit outcomes. In the case of education reform, the exit outcomes are the state essential "academic" learning requirements (EALRs). With this in mind, look back at the new basics and I think you can readily see why the EALRs are academic in name only. The EALRs do not focus on the teaching of objective material or on teaching children to think, how most parents would define academic. In the Schools for the 21st Century (the foundation of education reform in Washington state and the basis of American 2000) resource document, content is defined as excellence in terms of the change agenda; process as the product … the destination … what learning is about; and emotionality and affectivity as the means by which content and process will be achieved. This explains why the EALRs are so very subjective in nature.

From the exit outcomes, you then design down (sometimes referred to as backmapping). In the case of education reform, you design down by designing curriculum, instruction and teaching methodologies such that in their use and application, the child is moved to mastery of the exit outcomes.

The measure of that mastery is the assessment. In the case of education reform, such is the WASL (Washington Assessment of Student Learning). The WASL was developed by Riverside Publishing Company and scored by National Computer Systems, owned by Riverside Publishing and a subcontractor to National Center on Education Statistics under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Education. If the greater number of children fail the assessment, the curriculum, instruction and teaching methodologies are revisited and adjusted. If a few children fail the assessment, they are remediated to bring them in line. The assessments also assess classroom teachers. The assessment provides DATA FEEDBACK to the system, which is one reason why parents should not allow their children to take the WASL.

The goals are state defined, and the curriculum that must be used to teach the state goals is also, therefore, state defined in that a school district whose children consistently fail the WASL will be taken over by the state. Call the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and tell them you want the duplicating masters for the EALRs for all subject areas and all benchmark levels. What they will send are curriculum guides to teach the EALRs and how to assess those activities for mastery. Take a good look at the activities and the rubrics (standards usually defined on a 1-4 point scale) used to assess those activities. You will discover that they are looking for process — does the child demonstrate the wanted behavior/procedure (how Richard Stiggins, president and founder of the Assessment Training Institute, who is involved in our state assessments, defines process) in relation to the given prompt.

The state, as condition of receipt of Goals 2000 grant money, MUST comply with the requirements of Goals 2000, MUST agree to implement those laws and procedures necessary to attain the FEDERALLY defined goals as outlined in Goals 2000. Receiving other federal monies has also been tied to compliance with Goals 2000. Thus, if a state does not comply with Goals 2000, the state stands to lose other federal monies. This is the carrot (otherwise known as coercion) that is forcing states to buy into Goals 2000.

So, who is responsible? Our Congressman for passing Goals 2000? Our state legislature in passing ESHB 1209? I would answer that both our Congressman and our state legislature are responsible as they have the constitutional charge to pass laws.

Who determines the curriculum? Our Congressman in passing Goals 2000 that established the systems philosophy, and our state legislature in passing ESHB 1209, bringing to the state the systems philosophy of education that necessitates a narrowly constructed curriculum to attain the exit outcomes that they legislatively authorized the Commission on Student Learning (CSL) to establish. ESHB 1209 placed on the legislature the final acceptance or rejection of the EALRs.

The feds and the state determined the WHAT; the local school district only determines HOW they will achieve the federal and state mandated WHAT. There is no local control of anything.

So, you ask, why all these meetings at the local level? The philosophy is simple: if you foist something on people, they will not only reject it, they will probably avidly oppose it; if you make them think it is their idea, they will embrace and support it. There are two primary reasons behind the consensus building activities (focus forums billed as public meetings):

1. to move the greater number of people away from the Christian world view of right and wrong to the humanist world view that right and wrong are a matter of perception, therefore relative; and

2. to make the greater number of people present think the predetermined outcomes are their idea.

If such can be accomplished, those pushing reform go forth and proclaim that they have the support of the people and they are doing the will of the people, never mind that focus forums are not comprised of elected individuals and represent no one. This whole concept is governance by appointed bodies (democratic societies and participatory democracies), not elective bodies and is totally antithetical to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

╪