<p>In March, 1994, President Clinton signed his Administration's education "reform" legislation, the "Goals 2000: Educate America Act" into law. The education package sets out a number of goals to be achieved over a period of six years, including the following: </p>
<li>All students will arrive at school ready to learn;</li>
<li>The nation's high school graduation rate will be at least 90 percent;</li>
<li>Students will be competent in English, history, geography, foreign languages, and the arts;</li>
<li>American students will lead the world in math and science;</li>
<li>All adults will be literate;</li>
<li>Every school will be free of violence and drugs;</li>
<li>Two new goals added in the conference version: improved teacher training and creation of programs in local schools to enlist parental involvement.</li>
<p>These goals are not the source of our concern; what we object to is the Clinton Administration's means to achieve these ends. Of course these goals are commendable. In the short term, they are also unrealistic. And the process outlined by the Clinton Administration to actually attain them is fundamentally flawed. <br />
Goals 2000 is based on two faulty premises: (a) that increased funding can equalize and ultimately better performance; and (b) that greater federal involvement will result in improved student achievement. The educational history of the last 25 years contradicts both premises. </p>
<p>Here are our specific concerns. First, the legislation continues a two decade-long preoccupation with inputs--a strategy advanced by the education establishment to the detriment of academic achievement. President Clinton's plan to reform schools requires that every state establish "opportunity to learn" standards, defined as "conditions of teaching and learning necessary for all students to have a fair opportunity to learn." Although implementation of opportunity to learn standards is not enforced, states are encouraged to adopt them, following the failed logic that more money spent means higher test scores. Eric Hanushek of the University of Rochester points to this misguided assumption and notes that over 200 studies since the mid-1960s have failed to find any systematic relationship between spending and student performance. </p>
<p>Second, Goals 2000 expands federal control over education. Over the last 20 years, federal involvement has increased dramatically, and educational achievement has gone down. President Clinton's National Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC) -- essentially a national school board -- would certify and review all content, performance, delivery standards and assessments. </p>
<p>Third, Goals 2000 burdens states with additional restrictions, diminishing local control over education. States are charged with establishing a panel to develop a plan for education reform, and local educational agencies must create panels to develop reform plans, which are then submitted to the state educational agency. Instead of decentralizing education, then, Goals 2000 creates new regulatory mechanisms for schools and communities. </p>
<p>Improving American education is not a mysterious science. There is no federal program, no magic bullet, no novel approach or procedure that will someday be invented to cure our educational ills. We simply have to promote time-honored, common-sense policies. </p>
<p>At Empower America, we believe our education system needs fundamental reform. Here's what that might look like: reform measures providing for accountability, decentralization, national standards in the core subjects, merit pay, alternative certification, and student vouchers -- which allow parents to choose the public, private or religious school to which they send their children. These proposals, if implemented, would dramatically improve American education. But it would mean that the Clinton Administration would have to take on the education establishment -- including the very powerful, and very liberal, National Education Association (NEA). Unfortunately, instead of taking on the NEA, the Clinton Administration has been co-opted by it. And it is American students who are suffering because of it.</p>

<p>There are serious, legitimate concerns surrounding outcome-based education (OBE). In principle, it sounds good. In practice, however, OBE can be used to undermine parental authority and traditional moral and religious beliefs. This explains why much of the criticism of OBE has come largely from parents' rights groups. </p>
<p>A key to understanding outcome-based education depends on making the distinction between cognitive outcomes (i.e., the development of intellectual abilities and skills) and behavioral and social outcomes (i.e., the shaping of social attitudes, values, and interpersonal relationships). </p>
<p>A case can be made on behalf of outcome-based education if it is confined to cognitive outcomes; that is, if we objectively measure students' knowledge in the basics -- math, science, history, and English. Some people still believe that OBE can be used to advance such ends (a good example of OBE, properly utilized, is the current high school Advanced Placement exam, in which students do not get credit for their course unless they demonstrate proficiency in a rigorous nationwide test). This explains why conservative education reformers like Chester Finn, Jr. have spoken well of cognitively-based outcomes. </p>
<p>The real concern is when those in the education establishment use OBE to (1) eliminate objective measurable criteria (like standardized tests); (2) do away with the traditional subject-based curriculum in favor of an emphasis on things like general skills, attitudes and behaviors; and (3) advance their own radical social agenda. Increasingly, OBE is applied to the realm of behavior and social attitudes--becoming, in effect, a Trojan Horse for social engineering, an elementary and secondary school version of the kind of "politically correct" thinking that has infected our colleges and universities. </p>
<p>Outcome-based education raises a number of questions: what if parents do not want their children to view all lifestyles as equal? What if a young person has developed strong personal convictions based on traditional moral standards? Will students who do not give "appropriate" responses to desired "outcomes" still be allowed to graduate? It is also worth noting that little in the way of public input is sought when it comes to OBE, and it offers no method of accountability. </p>
<p>There are some other problems associated with OBE, including: </p>
<li>The "dumbing down" of classes. Many of the curricula being developed call for teachers to wait for all students to understand all aspects of a subject before moving on. Many parents fear that this will penalize more advanced students. </li>
<p></p>
<li>Traditional education terms are being reinterpreted. In some programs, cognitive now refers to "a belief system," and critical thinking refers to "a willingness to question everything, including one's deepest convictions, beliefs and relationships." </li>
<p>Some of the confusion surrounding outcome-based education is based on semantics. The conservative education reform movement of the 1980s wanted to focus on outcomes (i.e., knowledge gained) instead of inputs (i.e., dollars spent). The aim was to ensure greater accountability. What the education establishment has done is to appropriate the term but change the intent. </p>
<p>In short, the "outcomes" increasingly being measured are not based on objective and measurable criteria like standardized tests; the state-desired outcome is increasingly based on vague, subjective social aims. Consider some of the vocabulary that surrounds OBE: words like "openness to change," "appreciation of the global community," "tolerance," and "higher-order thinking skills." </p>
<p>There is a big push in the country on behalf of outcome-based education. But unless some means is found to ensure that it serves the traditional aims of sound intellectual and moral education, it should be resisted. </p>
<p><i>Taken from remarks by William J. Bennett, Co-director of Empower America, May 27, 1993. </i></p>

<p>During testimony today before the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, Citizens for a Sound Economy Director of Research Michael Becker advocated modifying, and and eventually eliminating entirely, the sugar program. “Due to the sugar program,” testified Becker, “CSE’s members, along with consumers in general, each year pay excessive prices for food simply to enrich the small group of sugar farmers and corn refiners who benefit from the sugar program.”</p>
<p>Becker asserted that the sugar program is one of the worst protectionist programs in that it not only hurts consumers directly in the form of higher prices, but undermines U.S. trade policy. “Indeed, the sugar program is typical of the inconsistencies that seem to underlie U.S. trade policy,” noted Becker. “On the one hand, the U.S. rails against protectionist policies of other governments. On the other hand, programs such as the sugar program make it clear that the United States itself has many protectionist policies.”</p>
<p>Becker remarked that if the support price for sugar dropped by 6 cents, consumers would save roughly 30 cents on a five-pound bag of sugar, or 8 cents on a 12-pack of soda. “Perhaps sugar growers or corn refiners are so rich that they consider such savings not worth it; the average consumer would probably disagree,” suggested Backer. He further cited a Department of Commerce study which estimated in 1988 that the sugar program cost U.S. consumers over $3 billion annually.</p>
<p>Becker disputed the claim that eliminating the sugar program would cost jobs. Study after study has shown that overall protectionism costs jobs, as the jobs lost elsewhere in the economy more than make up for the jobs saved in the protected industry,” he noted. “Hence, eliminating the sugar program, on net, would create jobs.”</p>
<p>Becker concluded his testimony by endorsing proposals such as one by Rep. Thomas Downey (D-NY) and Rep. William Gradison (R-OH) which would modify the sugar program in order to gradually lower raw sugar prices. Such proposals are an important first step toward mitigating the sugar program’s negative effects upon consumers and the economy,” he remarked. Becker added that ultimately CSE would like to see the sugar program eliminated entirely. “We see no justification for the continued existence of such an anti-consumer program,” he remarked.
</p>