An Education In Education- Part 2

First, I want to make clear that I do in fact know that the program implemented at my school is Outcome Based. I specifically asked the head teacher in a face to face meeting if it was and her answer was, “yes”. When one looks at the course syllabus it is obvious it is (after learning the term) but it was never called by that name during the screening, pitch process or on any other piece of information sent home with the parent.

I find this elimination of information deceptive as the program was pitched as ‘new’ and ‘cutting edge’; yet research shows implementation of this philosophy as far back as the seventies with ground work that stems from one hundred years ago.

I feel this deception was used as a way to gain funds for the school. Last year the district threatened larger classrooms and letting go teachers because of a massive budget deficit. Our school posted a whopping $475,000 deficit. Parents were asked to do all they could through fundraisers and donations, they were thanked but I couldn’t find the total amount of money that was raised.  I find it hard to believe our community of roughly 1000 kids, 2000 adults made the goal. If every parent gave 25 dollars that comes out to $50,000, then if all the gift baskets the classes auctioned sold for $100 that amount roughly is $6,000, then there were other events and fundraisers that I have no idea how much was brought in but let’s go high and say $100,000. We must account for the deduction of two teacher’s salaries for the ones that were let go and the total roughly is $254,000 eliminated from the deficit leaving, $221,000 to go.  I also haven’t heard of the deficit being brought up this semester. So where did the remaining money come from? Remember what the 20 minute video (9:10) from part 1 said about how the system works? Under Goals 2000, Clinton rewrites the funding mechanism for funding education; the Elementary/Secondary Education Act, which is rewritten by Congress every five years and says in a nutshell, “if you want some of your money back; you follow the plan, we’ll give you some of your money back.” With the history of the districts boundary changes in 2010 and the deficit in 2011, this piece of information lead me to ask the Area Supervisor over our school to investigate where the money for this new program was coming from. She called me back with this curt response, “I spoke with the principal and she informed me the parents are highly involved and the funding came from them. Somehow that answer just doesn’t satisfy me. Essentially, my tax dollars and your tax dollars are funding this program; one that has a proven failure record and I am not happy about it.

Does this game playing done by the Federal government with State government through Acts (mandates) such as; America 2000 (Bush), Goals 2000 (Clinton), No Child Left Behind 2001 (Bush), Race To The Top (Obama), School to Work Opportunity Act 1994, America Competes Act raise a huge red flag and a myriad of questions. Why would an exemplary school implement a program parents across the nation have protested and some successfully ousted from their district? Are our children being sold out for funding?

Needless to say, I wrote my State Legislature and District about my concerns. I have heard from three district members. I have asked each one if the Outcome Based System is part of the Master Facility Plan set to be accomplished by 2015 and overseen by Meria Carstarphen, the Superintendent. No one has given me a yes or no answer. The website that shows the plan initiatives states community and outside input have been gleaned in the process for creating Austin’s strategic plan, yet they only give a link to a summary that sates generalities. They promise transparency yet only give limited information. Are we really going to trust a summary? I want to see the data.

I may be getting a bit ahead of myself…so I’ll explain in part 3 what outcome based education stands for and show what other States (outside input) have experienced.