Psychology, Education and the ESEA's
Role
The new
paradigm shift is toward psychology in the classroom and new behavioral
"outputs", or exit goals.
These new behavioral objectives were mandated by the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) under the guise of "accountability."
Each state can trace the introduction
of behavioral educational outcomes back to its 1965 application for ESEA Title
III funding and the state plans developed under it. In essence, ESEA funding established a
procedure for requiring a school district applying for federal funds under
Title III to "prove the need" for the program and write a program to
meet the new behavioral goals, or outcomes, established in the Taxonomy system.
Robert H. Burke, a member of the
California State Legislature in 1971, wrote a white paper titled Education
– From The Acquisition of Knowledge to
Programmed, Conditioned Responses.
He traces the introduction of the new behavioral goals from the
California State Plan developed under ESEA Title III funds and submitted to the
U.S. Office of Education in 1969.
The California state plan mandated that 50% or more of the new Title III
funds would be used for planning the development and implementation of innovative,
experimental, and exemplary education programs and their pilot programs that
would lead to the adaptation of the new educational programs and methods in the
schools of the state. The
California legislature then passed the necessary laws to provide proper state
funding of the agencies in charge of the programs and administration of the new
"needs assessment" methods.
Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives was used to introduce the new
behavioral outcomes.
Burke quotes Benjamin Bloom as saying
that taxonomy is …
classifying...the intended
behavior of students – the ways in which individuals are to act, think,
or feel as the result of participating in some unit of instruction...The
taxonomy should be consistent with relevant and accepted psychological
principles and theories..." (Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, ppg. 12, 6)
Bloom also states …
…our concern
is to indicate two things: a) the generalization of this control to so much of
the individual's behavior that he is described and characterized as a person by
these pervasive controlling tendencies, and b) the integration of these
beliefs, ideas, and attitudes into a total philosophy or world view." (Handbook
II: Affective Domain, pg. 184).
In 1969, Virginia developed its
educational needs assessment under ESEA Title III funding, titled Virginia
Educational Needs Assessment Study (VENAS). It provided for a longitudinal
assessment (1969 and 1974) to assess the behaviors of both students and
teachers. The VENAS
defined "need" in operational terms as "evidence of a gap
between an educational goal or objective and evidence of educational
outcome." (VENAS Vol. I,
p.7). Under a section titled
Development of Learner-Oriented Behavioral Objectives for the VENAS (p. 54), the definition of those goals which focus
on the child was stated as "behavioral objectives," and involved
observable behaviors and their measurement. The gap between assessed performance and
the criterion behaviors defined a measure of educational need with reference to
specific outcomes.
In other words, measure the gap between
how a student or teacher initially thinks and acts upon entry to the system,
and how they think and act once they have been programmed and conditioned by
the system to meet the new state objectives. This is outcome-based education!
Lest an attempt be made to claim that
these behavioral educational objectives are not aimed at changing world views
but merely to measure observable "academic" progress, the VENAS makes it quite clear that this is not the case. It examined the entire Self System
(individual beliefs and attitudes) as an input to the Focal System (the school
or classroom). Drawing heavily on
behavioral theories involving the relationship between man and the environment,
the VENAS based its methods on the prevailing
assumptions that attitudes and values predispose the individual to some
preferential response, whether cognitive or affective. In other words,
attitudes and values constitute a form of "stimulus" that affects the
environment which, in turn, acts upon the individual.
The VENAS
drew heavily from the theories of Rokeach, who held
that beliefs become values when they are generalized to some end-state of
existence which is worth or not worth attaining. Rokeach
stated,
Values, then, are
abstract ideals which can be either negative or positive, and not associated
with any specific object or situation.
They are, rather, determiners of the ideal mode. (Rokeach, 1969).
The VENAS
further examines the role of values within a system that incorporates the use
of positive and negative sanctions to condition the learner to adopt its values
and identify with them.
Non-conformists are punished and conformers rewarded.
The VENAS
very clearly illustrates the companion roles that progressivist
and behaviorist education theories play in supporting the overall paradigm
shift. Affective education provides
a rationale for the behaviorist delivery.
Because we act and behave according to our values and attitudes, behaviorists
seek to change values and attitudes in order to control man's behavior by
predisposing him to act according to such stimuli. Thus, while "cognitive"
behaviorists will point the accusing finger at "affective"
behaviorists to blame them for the introduction of values clarification, the
fact is that behavior modification is based on the same underlying principles,
and leads to the same methods of instruction! Conditioning is conditioning, regardless
of the rationale.
In his 1971 white paper, Robert Burke
stated that …
the machinery for the management
of society is here – it is a reality. The system (PPBS)
provides for methods by which behavior of students is measured, as well as the
subtle process by which behavior patterns are improved until they meet the
requirements...
Anyone can request copies of their
state's applications for ESEA Title III funding in 1969 and find the
introduction of the same behavioral educational objectives to their state. These objectives provided the foundation
for each state's transition to the new behavioral paradigm.
Outcome Based Education is not dead, it
never has been. The system is
outcome-based, and the outcomes are behavioral. The new national goals under GOALS 2000,
the new "individual" state standards and assessments – all are
behavioral and part of the new Taxonomy of educational objectives. The new
method of instruction necessary for the delivery of the objectives is
necessarily behavioral.
Welcome B.F. Skinner, operant conditioning, and Direct Instruction....
Rebecca Bocchino
California
© March 1999
╪