The recent education reform movement goes back to the mid-80s. It wasn't until the early- to mid-90s that the general public began to take notice. In 1994-5 the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was renewed for 5 more years, and Bush's program for education reform known as America 2000 had become Clinton's Goals 2000. Funds emanating from these two pieces of federal legislation made the drive to "reinvent American education" virtually unstoppable.

As we approach the magic year 2000, it has become clear that the movement is not working. Not only have student scores declined, but schools no longer understand what their role is supposed to be. A November, 1998 international study ranked U.S. education 23rd among industrial nations in such categories as high school dropouts and graduates.

In addition to Goals 2000, three initiatives originally sponsored by semi-private agencies and newly-arrived educrats (mostly psychologists and sociologists) spearheaded the movement to turn traditional concepts of education on their head. These were Outcomes Based Education(OBE), School-to-Work(STW), and Early Childhood Education. All four now have the backing of considerable federal and state funding, and have been lumped into a single package known as "Workforce 2000."

With OBE the classroom turned from its traditional function of teaching cognitive and academic basics to its new role as changer of students'attitudes, values and behavior through radical revision of teaching methods. With STW concern for careers and jobs became an integral part of the learning process. With Early Childhood Education the idea that with the aid of federal funds schools should exert control from womb to tomb became a reality. The incredibly powerful forces that have been propelling this reform movement may be seen in Beverly Eakman's recent book, CLONING OF THE AMERICAN MIND: ERADICATING MORALITY THROUGH EDUCATION.

Toward the middle of the Eakman book we find convincing evidence of how various agencies colluded to establish an environment that led to widespread demands for reform. Such groups actually resembled a "shadow government" acting in lieu of elected officials. It all started in the 70s when the Council of Chief State School Officers fired the first shot that was to lead to the rapid spread and acceptance of the reform movement. In an internal confidential memo the group agreed that "The 50 states should organize a commission to establish the values that are significant in approaching problems that must be faced in the future." This led to the creation of the [Labor] Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) and in turn to the push to leave students free to "discover their own value systems" and not to "impose values on students."

What happened next is something very few critics of the reform have realized. The American public became a victim of a clever ploy. By allowing students to develop their own value systems, schools have inevitably and gradually become subject to a host of disciplinary and psychological problems never previously experienced. This in turn made the "marketing of new values saleable to a gullible public."

As Eakman observes, "From our perspective in 1998, the results have been devastating." And as a Sacramento newspaper editorial noted, it could be a long time before we can "avoid schools where metal detectors, surveillance cameras and hall monitors bearing walkie-talkies set a tone of tension and mistrust." This, according to a front-line critic in Oregon, is all the result of "incestuous relationships between special interest groups." It is indeed difficult to avoid the conclusion that something insidious is going on in education.

However, all is not necessarily lost. Already recent congressional actions have ruled that Goals 2000 may no longer be used to force states or school districts to provide OBE, school health clinics, or social services. And as widespread failure of the reforms continue being reported, modifications have begun to emerge within states which may be called encouraging. New York, California, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and a few other states lead in this. New York affords a kind of blueprint for this counter-movement. By requiring students to pass 5 Regents standardized exams in academic areas for graduation, increasing graduation requirements, and issuing for every school a report card indicating the success or failure of its students on the Regents Exams, New York, along with other states doing something similar, has begun changing the educational landscape

Unfortunately, as higher academic standards and expectations try to brush away some of the damage resulting from OBE, other problems have surfaced. The most serious has become the infusion of STW into school curricula. This is the area which needs watching for the next few years, for it is really a continuation of some of the more serious faults of OBE. It assumes, for instance, that the primary purpose of education is to pay as much attention to a student's career and "real-life" interests as to provide him with basic knowledge. As a result, every course a student takes, starting with kindergarten, will in some manner address his or her career interests, and when the student enters the upper grades he will be allowed to work in some local business or firm as much as 20 hours a week.

Such intrusion into the academic side of schooling is taking many alarming forms. A Boston middle school, for example, divides pupils among 3 "career houses": Children's Hospital, CVS Pharmacy, and Cross-Roads (related to a science museum). New York state has a New Visions Program which, through something called the New York Academy for Teaching and Learning, allows top seniors to go to some local college campus every morning for a half-day program to explore multiple facets of careers in such fields as education, human services, medicine, law, government, etc. Students return to their home schools in the afternoon to take regular courses.

All of this sounds fine except for a disconcerting implication. Just as OBE encouraged schools to welcome as partners such outside agencies as Social Services and Health Departments, so is STW encouraging schools to welcome business and labor groups to help determine the direction that career planning programs should take. As Eakman states in her book, "STW...gave the Labor Department power not only to intervene in local education, but to channel individuals directly into specific industries within the work force. The logic went that [its] experts are in the best position to know where the gaps are in market supply and demand...." Since Labor and business/industry will be working together to provide schools with detailed lists of competencies needed in the various occupational fields, the Labor Department will be responsible for matching children's aptitudes, skills, and career interests with the anticipated gaps. This will ultimately lead to "a viable human resource development system, a planned, dependable labor force, and a managed, rather than constantly oscillating, economy." There are already strong signs that the federal Department of Education may eventually become part of the Labor Department. What is most troubling, however, is that not only the federal and state governments, but big business is fast becoming involved in determining local educational policies. According to Eakman, "The STW concept is based on the Old World notion that one must produce people to meet the needs of the state rather than the uniquely American concept of freeing individuals to find their most fulfilling place in the world."

If, therefore, we want our children to be considered mere human resources for creating "a planned, dependable labor force and a planned economy," we can opt for current reforms as they are developing. But if we want them to become free, well-rounded individuals capable of freely determining their own future in a truly democratic society, then we must get directly involved in the plans currently being considered by our local school districts. While we may assume that OBE may be slowly fading away, we must learn to recognize what I have called the "viral mutations" to which it is subject. STW is one such mutation. Early Childhood Education is another. As a Pennsylvania legislator put it "If OBE is dead, then where's the corpse?"

The only way in which we can become directly involved is by attending school board or site-based committee meetings in large numbers. We must demand the right to inspect all information relating to partnerships with local businesses and agencies in order to determine whether there is excessive intrusion into the legitimate work of our schools. Unless we want our children's future to be restricted to local types of jobs or to seemingly attractive work that will keep them from pursuing a profession, we must insist on academic programs that will insure their intellectual development. Only in this way can we be certain that they will eventually enjoy a full and happy life based on solid knowledge and a truly free will.

We must also be on the alert for early childhood programs that are too aggressive. Scientific evidence is till ambivalent on the pros and cons of such education. We must try to avoid supporting the extension of the educational cycle into programs that will control our children's lives from womb to tomb. Life is too short and precious to allow our youth to become minions of forces that will shorten their life cycle. Childhood, adolescence and adulthood have been the perennial divisions of life. To force all youngsters into a new pattern for the sake of special-interest groups who believe that we must 'reinvent education' because a new century is dawning could prove catastrophic. Nurture must follow nature, and not vice versa.

SO LET US WELCOME THE RECENT MOVEMENT TOWARD A RETURN TO ACADEMICS, BUT LET US HELP OUR DISTRICTS RESIST THE TEMPTATION TO COLLABORATE WITH THE HORDES OF OUTSIDE FORCES THAT ARE CONTINUALLY TRYING TO CONVERT EDUCATION INTO SOMETHING IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE.