Escaping Education’s Paradigm Prison:
Six INpowering, EMpowering, Transformational Alternatives
Dr. William Spady
For over forty years my name has been closely linked to the concept of Outcome-Based
Education (OBE). From the beginning of my exposure to its philosophy and practices in 1968,
I’ve known OBE to be a model/approach/system of learning and education committed to two
things: 1) Fostering learning success for ALL students, and 2) Expanding what my colleagues
and I came to call the ‘Conditions of Success’ in schools. When those Conditions are expanded
or maximized, we argued, a fundamental premise of OBE can be realized:
ALL STUDENTS CAN LEARN AND SUCCEED, BUT NOT ON THE SAME
DAY IN THE SAME WAY.
Alas, all students definitely weren’t learning successfully forty years ago when OBE in North
America started to take form, and they still aren’t today. Why?
Because learning is controlled by the learner, and the highly-structured, boxed-in
paradigm of ‘modern’ education has been out of sync with that reality for well over a
century. For starters, we argued, learners vary enormously in terms of their aptitudes, learning
styles, socio-economic backgrounds, exposure to educational stimuli, home language, and
especially rates of learning. Education, on the other hand, is organized around numerous things
that aren’t supposed to vary at all: grade levels, required curricula, learning materials, schedules,
class periods, grading periods, semesters, school years, and promotion standards, among others.
Yes, it’s like squeezing large round pegs into narrow square holes, and countless students are
casualties of this ‘forced fitting’.
OBE’s Four Operational Principles
From the beginning, then, OBE’s philosophy of successful learning for ALL students ran
contrary to the deeply entrenched cultural expectations and fixed-opportunity structures that
schools embodied. To make this philosophy real in the lives of both teachers and students, we
urged schools to organize and operate their instructional programs around four key principles. If
implemented consistently, systematically, creatively and simultaneously, these four principles
had the power to expand, if not transform, the fundamental nature of instruction and learning
opportunities. Our short-cut names for them were: 1) Clarity of Focus on Outcomes of
Significance, 2) Expanded Opportunity for Students to Succeed, 3) High Expectations for
Quality Performance, and 4) Design (your curriculum) Down from Where You Want to End Up.
When schools and their teachers conscientiously applied these four principles, we saw many
kinds of dramatic improvements in both teaching processes and student learning: expanded time
for and frequency of student learning opportunities, higher levels of student success on learning
that really mattered in the long run, greater flexibility in teaching and learning schedules, futurefocused curricula, major reductions in bell-curve expectations and grading, more students
pursuing higher education, and many others. All together these benefits fell into two related
1
categories: what I call greater INPOWERMENT for all learners, and greater EMPOWERMENT
for all learners.
INpowerment and EMpowerment
By INpowerment I mean increases in things like ability, capacity, knowledge, and skill. By
EMpowerment I mean exercising personal choice in setting directions, goals and priorities for
how one wants to live and for the learning opportunities one wants to pursue. From this
perspective, most people praised OBE because of its INpowerment impact: When learning,
achievement, accomplishment and success all improved. For me, however, the proof of the
learning pudding is EMpowerment, the exercise of self-determination, intention, self-direction,
will and intrinsic motivation because those are the factors that lead to life satisfaction and
fulfillment. My life’s work and this paper are about maximizing both, not just the achievement
side of the learning equation. The keys to these impressive benefits lay in two areas.
The Meaning of “Outcomes”
First, once we carefully defined the concept of an Outcome as a culminating demonstration of
learning in 1986, the fundamental character of everything educational shifted dramatically. To
us, the word ‘demonstration’ meant that students had to DO something with the content they
had assimilated that was tangible, visible, and observable – not just answer questions on a test.
This, in turn, elevated the meaning of learning from ‘knowing and understanding’ content and
concepts to actively applying that knowledge in various ways. In other words, it required
students to be competent, not just knowledgeable, and it brought ‘demonstration verbs’ front
and center in the instructional process.
In addition, we interpreted the word ‘culminating’ to mean ‘at or after the end’, which
ultimately meant high school graduation – not this week, this grading period, this semester, or
this year. This, in turn, spawned the term Exit Outcomes: What students would be able to
demonstrate successfully when they exited the system. Then, as we considered the nature of
demonstrations more carefully, we realized that they take different forms, ranging from simple to
complex, and from micro to macro. This soon led to a framework that we called “The
Demonstration Mountain,” which is shown on the next page.
Together, these various revelations regarding Outcomes shifted the focus of curriculum,
instruction and learning to the capabilities students would ultimately develop and carry with
them into their future as they walked across the stage on graduation night and out the door
marked ‘Exit’. These role-performance abilities ultimately became the goal of what we called
‘Transformational OBE’ at the time.
The Meaning of “Based”
Second, as ‘radical’ as this shift in perspective about learning and achievement was for most
educators, it was accompanied by our equally radical interpretation of the word ‘based’. In our
work based meant: Defined by, Focused on, and Organized around. Consequently, we
reasoned, that if education were actually to be based on Outcomes – which is what the term OBE
directly implied – then the reality of educational practice had to align with and directly reflect the
2
nature of the outcomes that were ultimately being pursued. But which outcomes? Our answer:
The Exit Outcomes from which everything instructional was to be ‘Designed Down’, of course.
And ideally, those Exit Outcomes would reflect the complex life-performance abilities in the top
sector of the Demonstration Mountain – what we regarded as true ‘Outcomes of Significance’,
abilities that truly mattered in the long run. Hence, both INpowerment and EMpowerment would
increase dramatically the higher schools and their constituents would be willing to climb up the
Mountain to define and develop their Exit Outcomes. But none of this happened over night.
OBE and the ‘Business of Paradigms’
From my earliest acquaintance with OBE concepts in 1968 to the present, I have always seen it
as a very different paradigm than the one governing Time-Based education. And for that reason
I have always taken the concept and definition of a ‘paradigm’ seriously. By contrast, just as
3
educators across the world seem to have a very ‘loose’ definition of OBE, so does the public at
large in relation to paradigms and paradigm ‘shifts’. Since presumably well-informed people use
these two terms in disturbingly casual ways – as if they simply mean ‘changing your opinion of
something’ – I want to stake out a much stronger position here.
Paradigms as Pictures of Reality
Following the impressive legacy established decades ago by the eminent futurist Joel Barker in
his famous video The Business of Paradigms, I regard a paradigm as the way you view and do
everything. Why? Because to you, the paradigm – or frame of reference you live within –
represents your REALITY.
It’s your picture of what ultimately exists, what’s ultimately true, what’s
ultimately right, and what’s ultimately possible.
Consequently, as I indicate in one of my recent PowerPoint slides, people often defend the
validity and legitimacy of their paradigm to such levels of vigor and violence that the result is
WAR and DEATH. That’s why I don’t treat them casually at all.
With that said, when I think of paradigms and paradigm shifts, Barker’s famous saying always
comes to mind:
When a paradigm shifts, everyone goes back to ZERO.
And while ZERO sounds frightening and feels disorienting and dangerous, I like to add that it’s
also what some philosophers regard as the ‘point of creation’ – when you are free to choose,
view and do things in a fundamentally different way, unencumbered by previous beliefs,
assumptions, habits and behaviors. Suddenly, they suggest, you realize that old, familiar patterns
are not the only choices available to you, no matter how habitual and ingrained they may be.
ZERO pushes you into the unknown, but that place of total mystery and uncertainty is where you
find true creativity and invention.
OBE’s Three Original Paradigm Shifts
From the beginning, then, OBE represented a significantly different ‘reality’ for conventional
education that we often described element by element. Overall, however, this fundamental
transformation was expressed in a fairly simple statement that represented the reversal of two
profoundly fundamental conditions, namely:
WHAT and WHETHER students learn successfully is more important than
WHEN and HOW they learn it.
In education’s conventional time-based paradigm, the priority given to these two conditions are
reversed.
Beyond this, OBE went through a very dynamic period of evolution in the decades of the
Eighties and Nineties that we experienced and defined as three genuine paradigm shifts that we
named Traditional, Transitional and Transformational OBE respectively. Each time our
understanding of learning outcomes significantly expanded, OBE itself took on a new reality for
us, largely because we took the word based seriously. For us education needed to be defined by,
4
focused on and organized around outcomes, and as our own thinking evolved ‘up’ the
Demonstration Mountain, so did education’s ultimate purpose, realities and character. As we
experienced it, when the fundamental meaning and attributes of a desired learning demonstration
(an outcome) changed, so did the meanings and character of curriculum, instruction, opportunity,
assessment, promotion, and a host of other things that determine the structural patterns of
education.
In other words, the existing reality of educational practice was being called into question each
time a fundamentally new definition and meaning of outcomes were endorsed; and those
changing realities, I realized, were the equivalent of what people like Joel Barker called
paradigm shifts.
Shift One represented the dramatic change from conventional Time-Based practice
to OBE itself – just to get into the ballpark I would say as a metaphor. This was a
shift into basic, Traditional, early-stage ways of applying OBE’s four principles
without implied changes in what was taught in conventional subject areas, courses
and grade levels.
Shift Two was the significant move from Traditional to Transitional as the concept
of an outcome expanded up the middle level of the Demonstration Mountain, beyond
what was taught in individual grade levels, courses and programs. As a result, both
outcomes and curricula became more elevated and interdisciplinary, and rigid school
structures of all kinds began to dissolve.
Shift Three was the gigantic leap from established curriculum subjects and disciplines
to the future and the role performance abilities required to thrive there. As schools
reached the upper level of the Mountain, both their thinking and curricula became
trans-disciplinary, and relevant contexts for learning expanded into the community.
For us, the paradigm of Transformational OBE had arrived.
So that was our picture: Three models and paradigms of OBE, and three paradigm shifts to go
from conventional schooling to OBE’s highest level. For us this interpretation of OBE’s three
distinct paradigms remained unchanged for twenty-five years – until I became aware of a larger
truth underlying these three shifts, a truth that forms the rationale of this paper:
Every time our understanding of learning and outcomes expands significantly,
so does the purpose, meaning, reality, and paradigm of OBE, along with its
implications for educational practices.
New Understandings
As the wheel of good fortune turned for me this past year or so, I have had the opportunity of
addressing the ‘true’ meaning and implications of OBE at seven different national conferences,
seminars, and workshops in countries outside the U.S. They included England, the Philippines,
Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates. As I prepared for each event, I was
deeply aware of the widespread misunderstandings surrounding the meaning of OBE, so I
focused on explaining both its core meaning and the major evolution just described. Since
OBE’s history was all about paradigms and paradigm shifts, I found myself drawn ever deeper
5
into explaining the nature of paradigms and what happens when paradigms ‘shift’. In doing so, I
realized that:
Every paradigm shift is a liberation and a transformation, no matter from which
paradigm you just shifted and to which you are evolving. Moreover, the old
paradigm doesn’t cease to exist; you simply choose to view and use its defining
elements in a different way, modifying and/or discarding them as you go.
Designing Down from the New ZERO
This major realization soon led to cascade of insights, issues, and dilemmas that eventually
compelled me to rethink and reframe almost everything in my last thirty years of work. This
remainder of this paper is a short summary of how this mountain of endeavor is starting to
coalesce for me in a meaningful new way. Although I’m unable to describe exactly how this
process unfolded, I’ve been able to consolidate many of the basic features of this work in the
teeter-totter diagram that accompanies this paper. While decidedly imperfect, it helps me
describe a number of new insights that I will now explain one at a time.
(Please take time to review the diagram now)
First, early in the millennium my personal growth work and thinking led me to view ‘modern’
education that was both INpowering and EMpowering through the largest lens I could. This
analysis took me past OBE and its three known paradigms, until I soon had five, which I arrayed
and described in a 2003 version of the teeter-totter diagram. As a force of habit, I looked for
additional “T” words for the two new ones, but I fell short of finding appropriate words and
eventually stopped trying.
Second, once I eventually discovered yet a sixth one that I could clearly distinguish from the
others, I was compelled to do some renaming of the original five, which you now see.
Third, when I realized that the original three models/paradigms of OBE were all on the left side
of the teeter totter, it became clear that the terms Traditional, Transitional, and Transformational
were both limited in what they implied and had been limiting my thinking about both OBE and
paradigms for many years. With this in mind, I further realized that the left side of the teetertotter diagram was primarily about developing learner INpowerment, and the right side about
cultivating and expressing EMpowerment.
Fourth, since I knew that each paradigm of OBE as I had understood them was shaped by the
fundamentally different nature of that paradigm’s intended outcome, I began to think about the
primary outcome, or grounding, of each of the six paradigms I had now identified. Rather
quickly I came up with six “C” words on which those paradigms were Based. This allowed me
to link each paradigm with a particular kind of OBE, which is shown by the six arrows above the
teeter-totter. Conclusion: The four principles of OBE can be applied to all six paradigms, but
will be applied a bit differently in each case.
Fifth, As you move from left to right across below the teeter-totter, the defining qualities and
6
characteristics of those paradigms and models change. On the left are attributes that have more
utility, are more system-focused, stress mental processing, and lend themselves to objective
observation and measurement. Those that are decidedly more personally grounded, intrinsic,
stress inner feelings, and emphasize subjective human experience are on the right. Hence, I
regard most of these attributes to be a continuum with the ‘extremes’ located at each end. But if
viewed through a different lens, the teeter-totter framework is an evolutionary hierarchy with
greater and great degrees of human awareness and consciousness at play as one ascends.
Sixth, as all of this other analysis was unfolding, I began adding more characteristics/dimensions
to the framework. Soon I realized that many more new dimensions could be added to this list
than there was space for them on one sheet, so a new representation of these attributes and the
framework itself is in order.
Seventh, based on my earlier work with Dr. Charles Schwahn on models of leadership, I realized
eventually that there was a distinctive approach to leadership associated with each paradigm and
type of OBE. Although this adds another rich dimension to the framework and makes it more
comprehensive, these modes of leadership are only mentioned in the text below but not on the
teeter-totter itself.
Eighth, thanks to recent exposure to Ken Wilber’s newest integral work, I had a revelation about
what paradigm shifts meant and implied within this larger framework. That revelation gave new
meaning to the familiar terms Transitional and Transformational, which stunned me when it
happened. In short, I realized that ALL paradigm shifts represent a Transformation to those
who experience them. At each step across the teeter-totter from left to right, everyone goes back
to ZERO because there is a new, more expansive grounding and an unfamiliar reality to face that
wasn’t there before. Moreover, as people Transition from one paradigm to another on the
teeter-totter, they are evolving by adding greater expansiveness, depth and complexity to the
‘reality’ that went before – one Transformation at a time; one Transformation after the other.
Hence:
No matter which paradigm you Transition from, nor which you Transition
to, you will experience that Transition as a Transformation!
Ninth, what you experience when your paradigm shifts and you go back to ZERO is almost
exactly what OBE’s Design Down (from where you want to end up) principle is all about. Yes,
each step forward represents a transformation of your view of reality, but all your previous
experiences don’t disappear, and you don’t throw them away. Instead, you re-evaluate,
redefine, reframe and redesign the parts of them that are still useful as building blocks for what
you’re now encountering (and ultimately trying to accomplish). Since you can’t and don’t throw
away all you’ve learned previously, you can now view it in a different light and use those parts
or aspects of it that support the more complex and evolved new things you’re experiencing and
trying to manifest. Since this redefining and reframing process happens at every step across
the teeter-totter, what’s gone before has new meaning and utility, but it’s not useless or lost.
Tenth, I believe that this entire framework describes a Transitional process. As education
transitions from paradigm to paradigm, each is simply a stepping-stone on the evolutionary path
that opens learners to their own Inner Realization. So from this perspective, the first five
7
paradigms on the teeter-totter are all Transitional steps to that ultimate state of being I call Inner
Realization. From this perspective of infinite potential, possibility and purpose – something
rarely experienced and endorsed in Western cultures – you re-evaluate, re-define and Design
Down every aspect of your learning and life.
Eleventh, the diagram suggests that the teeter-totter is in balance, but that doesn’t reflect current
reality. I’ve often said that there’s a four hundred pound gorilla sitting on the left end, which
makes reaching a state of Inner Realization a major uphill climb.
Thumbnail Profiles of the Six Paradigms
Here, then, is what I think OBE, outcomes, and leadership mean and represent to the advocates
of these six INpowering and EMpowering paradigms. Although any given approach to
education can be influenced by more than one paradigm, I believe each has a core grounding that
shapes its primary purpose and essence.
Academic Excellence
Those who advocate the prevalent CONCEPT-Based ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE paradigm of
learning and education define outcomes primarily as:
Demonstrations of Higher-Order Cognitive Abilities and Conceptual
Understandings that both extend and bridge traditional subject area curricula.
Given their more abstract nature, these abilities invite more integrated and interdisciplinary
curriculum approaches to problem-framing and problem-solving teaching and learning. In
embracing this approach to learner INpowerment, AE advocates assume that: analytical and
critical thinking developed across the culturally respected breadth of human knowledge is
essential in forging an informed, responsible citizenry.
Within this paradigm OBE is viewed and used primarily as a vehicle for:
Facilitating complex thinking processes across diverse subjects
and is driven by the design question: What analytical and critical thinking skills and broadbased human knowledge ensure that learners become informed, responsible citizens? Here
Academic Excellence embodies the primary essence of education, and knowledgeable, critical
thinkers are its ‘proof of the pudding’. Leadership influences this paradigm’s implementation
primarily from an Administrative/Regulatory grounding.
Applied Performance
Those who advocate the more pragmatic COMPETENCE-Based APPLIED PERFORMANCE
paradigm of learning and education define outcomes primarily as:
Demonstrations of Tangible Technical Skills and Abilities that are deemed
necessary or useful in a variety of life pursuits that transcend academic tasks.
8
Given their widespread utility and application, these hands-on skills use, but transcend, content
learning and elevate the significance of tangible application in the learning process. In
embracing this approach to learner INpowerment, AP advocates assume that: the tangible skills
and techniques developed through sequential training and focused practice are essential in
forging an adept, capable citizenry.
Within this paradigm OBE is viewed and used primarily as a vehicle for:
Developing tangible and useful abilities and competences
and is driven by the question: What tangible skills and techniques ensure that learners
become adept, capable citizens? Here Applied Performance embodies the primary essence of
education, and germane elements of Academic Excellence are reframed and used to support this
larger aim. Leadership influences this paradigm’s implementation primarily from a Managerial/
Technical grounding.
Life Challenge
Those who advocate the future-focused CONTEXT-Based LIFE CHALENGE paradigm of
learning and education define outcomes primarily as:
Demonstrations of Diverse, Complex Role Performances critical to functioning
effectively in the diverse, dynamic arenas of life.
Rather than emphasizing conventional subject matter mastery, learning time is focused more on
empowering life-performance capabilities cultivated by having learners deal with the complexity
and diversity of conditions within authentic life contexts. In embracing this approach to learner
INpowerment, LC advocates assume that: the role-performance abilities, developed through
diverse real-world learning experiences and focused practice, are essential in forging a citizenry
of versatile, confident individuals.
Within this paradigm OBE is viewed and used primarily as a vehicle for:
Cultivating essential, versatile life-role abilities
and is driven by the design question: What range of role-performance abilities and realworld experiences ensure that learners become versatile, confident citizens? Here Life
Challenge embodies the primary essence of education, and germane elements of Applied
Performance and Academic Excellence are reframed and used to support this larger aim.
Leadership influences this paradigm’s implementation primarily from a Strategic/Visionary
grounding.
Personal Fulfillment
Those who advocate the more Empowering CONTRIBUTION-Based PERSONAL
FULFILLMENT paradigm of learning and education define outcomes primarily as:
Tangible Expressions of Committed Endeavor that Enhance the Quality of Life
for self and others.
9
While often linked to influential career endeavors, this approach to education focuses on
developing and supporting learners’ capacities to make a difference in the world in whatever
ways inspire them. In embracing this approach to learner EMpowerment, PF advocates assume
that: the empowering orientations and abilities fostered through self-inspired pursuits that
benefit the greater good are essential in forging an inclusive community of thriving, contributing
people.
Within this paradigm OBE is viewed and used primarily as a vehicle for:
Honoring and enhancing individual passions, talents, and potentials
and is driven by the design question: What empowering orientations, abilities, and pursuits
ensure that learners become thriving, contributing community members? Here Personal
Fulfillment embodies the primary essence of education, and germane elements of Life Challenge,
Applied Performance and Academic Excellence are reframed and used to support this larger aim.
Leadership influences this paradigm’s implementation primarily from a Collaborative/
Empowering grounding.
Universal Exploration
Those who advocate the facilitative CURIOSITY-Based UNIVERSAL EXPLORATION
paradigm of learning and education define outcomes primarily as:
Tangible Expressions of Individual Interest and Originality that emanate from
the adventure and unbounded joy inherent in exploration, discovery and learning.
Often regarded as the innate and unconstrained expression of humans’ curiosity and desire to
learn, this learner-centered approach offers the freedom to explore in depth whatever captures the
imagination. In embracing this approach to learner EMpowerment, UE advocates assume that:
cultivating learners’ innate curiosity as well as the excitement of discovery and creation are
essential in forging an inclusive community of inquisitive, self-actualizing people.
Within this paradigm OBE is viewed and used primarily as a vehicle for:
Promoting unlimited learner imagination and innovation
and is driven by the design question: What kinds of self-directed, inspiring discoveries and
creations ensure that learners become inquisitive, self-actualizing community members?
Here Universal Exploration embodies the primary essence of education, and germane elements
of Personal Fulfillment, Life Challenge, Applied Performance and Academic Excellence are
reframed and used to support this larger aim. Leadership influences this paradigm’s
implementation primarily from a Participatory/Actualizing grounding.
Inner Realization
Those who advocate the holistic CONSCIOUSNESS-Based INNER REALIZATION paradigm
of learning and education define outcomes primarily as:
States of Awakening and Opening to Universal Energies and Consciousness, the
10
gateway to unlimited possibilities and choice in how one learns, lives, and leads.
These states of silence, serenity and inner peace are often reflected in one’s harmonious
attunement to, resonance with, and acceptance of nature and all of life. While they result from
remarkable commitment and disciplined practice, attaining them involves no single approach or
‘curriculum’. In embracing this approach to learner EMpowerment, IR advocates assume that:
opening to and activating one’s innate infinite potential and capacity to live in harmony with all
existence are essential for acknowledging one’s membership in the universal community of everevolving life.
Within this ultimate Empowerment paradigm OBE is viewed and used primarily as a vehicle for:
Elevating human awareness, harmony, and preservation
and is driven by the design question: What kinds of consciousness-raising experiences ensure
that learners open to and activate their infinite potential as ever-evolving beings in the
universal community of life? Here Inner Realization embodies the primary essence of
education, and its all-pervasive character shapes how Universal Exploration, Personal
Fulfillment, Life Challenge, Applied Performance and Academic Excellence are ultimately
pursued. Leadership influences this paradigm’s implementation primarily from an
Attuned/Unifying grounding.
Education’s Current Paradigm Prison
Given the foregoing, you can imagine what a profound disappointment it was for my OBE
colleagues and me to see the evolutionary progress we had made toward both learner
INpowerment and EMpowerment over a twenty-plus year period drummed out of existence in
the mid-Nineties. It was usurped by politically driven mandates for greater system and student
accountability on basic skill performance that was to be measured mainly by high-stakes
standardized paper-pencil tests. In the U.S. these policies are known today by many names,
including:
High-stakes standardized testing
One-size fits all education
Race to the Top
Common Core curriculum
Top down mandates
In the box learning
Factory model schooling
No Child Left Behind
Time-based opportunities
Assembly-line instruction
From my perspective this juggernaut of federal and state testing and accountability policies and
legislation has all but obliterated the human factor from educational thinking and practice..
For example, these mandates have doubly reinforced everything we had been challenging about
the rigid, disempowering, Industrial Age, factory-model, assembly-line, calendar-driven
structure and character of public education in the U.S. Moreover, as Dr. Schwahn and I have
pointed out many times in presentations and in writing, they clearly fail to reflect that, in today’s
Empowering world:
Anyone of Any Age can learn Anything from Anywhere at Anytime they
choose from World Class Experts by using Modern Technology.
11
Instead, these policy mandates define a kind of paradigm prison in which:
Specific Students of a Specific Age must learn Specific Things on a
Specific Schedule in a Specific Classroom from a Specific Teacher using
Specific Materials and Methods so that they can pass Specific Tests on
Specific Dates – and only then will they Specifically be called “Okay.”
In the best light possible these policies appear to combine a very traditional, micro perspective
about learning with the rational and technical essence of the far left side of the teeter-totter.
Politicians and policymakers call this profoundly limited, constraining, and regressive approach
‘educational reform’, and they claim that it is THE route to learners’ INpowerment and to their
successful career and economic futures.
It doesn’t take much, however, to see that: 1) these mandates are utterly devoid of
EMpowerment for anyone, 2) they rob educators of any sense of professionalism, and 3) the
word that best describes them is ‘de-form’ rather than ‘reform’. And, to make matters worse,
those who champion this impersonal, mechanistic, regressive juggernaut in countries across the
world often refer to it as Outcome-Based Education, which it clearly isn’t – apparently because it
requires a lot of testing of what they superficially consider to be ‘outcomes’.
In fact, rather than being a primitive form of OBE, I consider this entire syndrome of policies
and practices to be an extreme case of ‘CBO’, which, among other things, stands for:
Curriculum Based Outcomes
Content Bound Objectives
Calendar Based Opportunities
Cellular Based Organization
Convention Bound Orientations
Credit Based Obsession.
With historical hindsight you can see that these six CBO’s by themselves – without the intense
accountability mandates of the past two decades – resemble the paradigm of education we
encountered in the 1970’s when we began to advocate and implement OBE. Now that those
mandates have been superimposed on this already constraining closed system, however, a
seventh all-powerful CBO has been added to the paradigm:
Compliance Based Obedience.
I include it here because decisions about almost everything educational have been taken out of
the hands of teachers and students and placed within these externally imposed directives. What,
when, and how the curriculum is to be taught, and what, when, and how learning is to be
demonstrated are decided by fiat, not by the day-to-day conditions that surround and affect
teacher and learner engagement.
Naming the Beast
Over the years I’ve given this ‘reform/deform’ paradigm several names, but I now think it’s best
called ACCOUNTABILITY STANDARDS (AS). I’ve chosen the word Accountability because
there so much threat, blame, severe consequence and even punishment attached to not
performing up to expectations. Examples abound of entire student and educator careers being
cut off because of alleged ‘failures’. And I chose the word Standards because meeting
12
predetermined performance levels is the essence of the paradigm, and the construct driving it is
Standardization. In the name of equal opportunity and fairness, everyone of a given status is
supposed to be doing the same things the same way on the same day, without exception.
So yes, from this perspective, the AS paradigm is fundamentally DISempowering, and for that
reason it doesn’t belong on the teeter-totter of INpowering and EMpowering paradigms. Yes, it
is a very prevalent paradigm and reality of today’s education, but it’s not a paradigm that moves
learning and education forward in the 21st Century. Instead, it’s the paradigm prison from which
all six of the teeter-totter paradigms escaped, transitioned and transformed.
And note: If I were to revert to my past thinking and verbiage about OBE for a moment, I’d say
that the ACCOUNTABILITY STANDARDS paradigm is ‘Terminally Traditional’, no matter
how much advanced technology schools may ‘sprinkle over the top’ to facilitate it. While some
students may survive its demands and constraints with more Common Core or STEM knowledge
than before, they probably won’t go far in their careers, as is claimed. Real career advancement,
as Daniel Goleman documents in his book Working with Emotional Intelligence, depends on
the qualities and abilities developed on the right side of the teeter-totter, not just what’s on the far
left end.
The AS Paradigm Profile
Nonetheless, those who advocate this mechanistic CONTENT Based ACCOUNTABILITY
STANDARDS paradigm of learning and education define outcomes primarily as:
Demonstrations of Basic Skills Mastery of Prescribed Content, usually assessed
via tightly scheduled, paper-pencil, quantitative achievement ‘measures’.
In embracing this basic approach to learner INpowerment, AS’s advocates assume that: the
cognitive mastery of basic skills and required curriculum content, as measured by written
assessments, is permanent and ensures college and career success – a dubious assumption
indeed.
Since real OBE is absent in this paradigm, its proponents focus primarily on:
Assuring student and system performance and accountability
driven by the design question: What kinds of basic cognitive skills and knowledge ensure
that learners will succeed in college and their careers? For those who advocate this paradigm
of what they claim is learner INpowerment, basic skill and core content knowledge underlie all
relevant learning, and personal development and success are impossible without them.
Leadership in this paradigm’s implementation is exercised primarily from a Positional/Directive
grounding.
Is a Prison Break Possible?
I’m hoping that today’s generation of better-educated parents and citizens will not tolerate the
AS paradigm and policies for much longer. Many know better and are demanding something
better for their children in the form of teeter-totter alternatives like Montessori and Waldorf
13
schools, whose enrollments and waiting lists are bursting. In addition, a trend has already begun
in the U.S. called “opting out” in which parents are refusing to allow their children to be
subjected to the regimen and pressure imposed by the plethora of ‘high-stakes’ standardized tests
in their schools. They, plus the diversity of private, charter, and home school alternatives now
available, generally represent a rejection of the AS one-size-fits-all philosophy, and they take the
opting out trend to a much higher level.
When considered together, then, it appears that those who can afford it, along with those who
clearly want something better and different for their children, are abandoning America’s public
schools. The big question remains, however, whether this segment of the population can muster
the political muscle to overturn the thinking and policies driving AS. Their withdrawal from the
system clearly weakens it, but weakening is not the same as reversing and replacing, and about
that I am much more skeptical. Perhaps the only ones who will eventually remain are those who
have no alternative beyond what their public system can provide.
CBO Paradigm Paralysis
Replacing either CBO or AS thinking requires shock value that exceeds what enlightened
research and knowledge have brought to bear so far, mainly because large numbers of
educational institutions and interests either deliberately or unconsciously want to preserve them.
As we experienced with OBE thirty years ago, a large majority of educators are themselves
locked into CBO, especially its subject structure and grade level elements. Their professional
roles and expertise are closely tied to knowing and presenting a given body of content to
youngsters of a given age for a given amount of time. In addition, the national and state subject
matter organizations and teachers’ unions both wield enormous political influence that reinforces
these professional identities and keeps employment contracts and time-based working conditions
tied to CBO. Ditto for current teacher and administrator pre-service and in-service training
programs.
Moreover, many of those in the academic community who share a more expansive view of
learners and learning have been deliberately shut out of influencing current educational practice
because their in-service programs don’t align with and support AS. Nor have their ideas had any
noticeable impact on state and federal policy makers, presumably because they’re too
sophisticated and complex for them to understand. While these scholars and consultants might
get enormous validation and encouragement from their peers, their ideas have had little impact
on how politicians view learning and education. Why? Largely because politicians have been
lulled into believing that standardized test scores tell them all they need to know about student
learning and achievement in order to assess whether teachers and administrators are ‘doing the
job they been hired to do’. Simplistic? Yes. Hired hands? That too.
Massive Doses of Cultural Inertia
So, when all is said and done, is it going to be possible somehow for the public system in the
U.S. to replace the AS paradigm with any of those on the teeter-totter? Ever? My answer is NO,
not in my lifetime. Doing so would require a massive change in the paradigm thinking and
actions that govern our culture and control our political system, and waiting for a couple of older
generations like mine to die off won’t do it either.
14
Education is an institution, and institutions like education are meant to be stable and strong. To
keep them that way societies imbed them in mountains of law, expectations and rituals that are
passed down and reinforced from generation to generation. Because parents shape and influence
the thinking and behavior of their children, societies reinforce and replicate themselves even
when laws change. That’s because fundamental beliefs don’t change . . . very much . . . and
when . . . they do . . . it’s incremental . . . and very . . . slowly . . . at that. Traditions get
transmitted this way and have powerful ways of locking things in for later generations that would
benefit from more open and Empowering paradigms.
For example, the good news is that most adults in the U.S. have gotten into and through high
school and have diplomas to prove it. And what kind of high school did they go to? It was a
CBO high school that never made it onto the teeter-totter. Hence, most American adults only
know about one kind of high school and probably don’t know that the teeter-totter even exists.
Their CBO high school worked for them, and their senior year was when America was at its
greatest, so what’s there to change?
Given that viewpoint, what kind of public high school do you think almost all U.S. students are
attending today? A CBO high school, of course; but with strong ACCOUNTABILITY
STANDARDS to reinforce it. And don’t forget the Presidential speeches and publishing
companies that directly and indirectly tell parents, students and educators that their CBO high
school, along with a heavy dose of AS, is offering them THE vital route to a successful future.
So while many U.S. students don’t like high school, few students and families know that other
kinds of high schools are possible – unless they’ve been abroad or are lucky enough to live in a
community with a few bold and daring educators who’ve managed to create a viable
ALTERNATIVE for them.
The Paradigm Will Shift When . . .
. . . the word ‘alternative’ is regarded as a breath of fresh air for families and their children
rather than a ‘dumping ground’ for non-achieving kids. That will only happen when there are
enough bold, daring, enlightened and persevering people in a local community willing and able
to go through the enormous challenges, trials and tribulations of creating something ‘new and
different’. By saying this, I’m admitting my skepticism about the paradigm of the existing CBO
system ever shifting. Instead I’m betting on the human spirit’s innate desire to innovate and
create. If I’m right, viable alternatives to CBO and AS will emerge and flourish under three
key conditions:
1) Their focus will have to be firmly fixed on learners as human beings and how
humans function and thrive in the real world;
2) Those who develop and operate them will have to persist and persist in their efforts
to gain exemptions from the disempowering policies and regulations that have kept
education in paradigm prison for well over a century; and
3) At all costs, those who participate in them must avoid using the word ‘curriculum’
and calling them ‘schools’.
15
The latter terms will only encourage more CBO thinking and inhibit out-of-the-paradigm
thinking and implementation. Learning experiences and learning communities send a whole
different message and invite possibilities that reflect the best of the teeter-totter’s remarkable
INpowerment and EMpowerment potential.
8/8/16
16