The Rainbow Swastika (PDF book) - Scattered Seed Ministries

The Rainbow Swastika - Education for the New Age
declared in 1991 that the National Goals 2000 framework "must take into account those students who do not attend public elementary and
secondary schools [in] our measure of progress." (_Potential Strategies for Long-Term Indicator Development_, Report No. 91-08, p.37)
Nor will home-schooling provide an escape. Iowa legislators have already authorized the Department of Education to dictate which tests
home-schooled children will be required to take in order to be accepted as "educated"; if they should fail to pass an OBE-based exam favored
by this federal body, state law will consider them "truant" and in need of child welfare intervention. On the national level, the National
Education Association (NEA) has proposed that home-schooled children be required to use "a curriculum provided by the State Department
of Education" and "meet all state requirements" to pass. (NEA 1992-93 Resolutions, pub. Sept. 1993)
3b. An important tangent: Are "Goals 2000" and OBE being forced on Americans, or not? This is being hotly debated at the moment.
Parents and local school authorities claim to have found evidence that the "voluntary" nature of OBE is a sham designed to deceive the
public, a strategy which is sanctioned at the highest government levels. The federal "Goals 2000 Educate America Act" itself contains plans
(S.1150) to eventually replace the high school diploma with the CIM (Certificate of Initial Mastery, awarded through OBE). However, the
Education Department, in an effort to deflect growing opposition, gives high profile on its website to a 1996 "Amendment to the Goals 2000
Educate America Act", which "does not require [any Goals 2000 participant] to provide OBE." [Their case would be greatly strengthened if
they could point to even one Goals 2000 participant who has been authorized to provide an alternate framework instead of OBE, but none
appear anywhere on the site.] This amendment also states that Goals 2000 itself is a "completely voluntary" program; yet a clause in the
"Elements of the State Goals 2000 Action Plan" requires participating states to "monitor... [and] improve schools that are not meeting the
state content standards voluntarily adopted by the state," showing that the "voluntary" clause applies only at the state level. And the states
which have already "voluntarily adopted" Goals 2000 currently total 49 or 50 (cited by different sources). [This situation confirms freedom in
American education in the same way that the "election" of "President" Saddam Hussein by 99% of Iraqi citizens confirms democracy.] Plans
to make CIMs a requirement for students to leave high school and/or enter college were presented years ago by the states of Oregon (House
Bill 3565, 1991, p.10) and Iowa ("Policy Study 94-2", 1994, p.44), while bills in Oregon and Mississippi legislatures sought to link the CIM
to "employability" (none passed as yet).
Parents also charge that the U.S. Government is misleading the public in presenting OBE as "locally driven" when it is actually predetermined
from the federal level. The same Education Department webpage mentioned above reassures everyone that the Goals 2000
curriculum is truly subject to local input and control - all are invited to get involved. However, the Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development must not have been informed; they write: "Local control has been, and continues to be, the most durable myth, or
operating principle, of educational governance in the United States." (_The Governance of Curriculum_, 1994, p.3)
4. OBE as a tool for NA "Change Agents"
While Outcome Based Education is under attack both in the U.S. and Europe for promoting illiteracy and other scholastic deficiencies, there
is only room here to note parallels with Bailey's radical NA agenda to prepare society to receive the Hierarchy. [For other avenues used by
"change agents", see the previous section called "The Transformation of Society".]
One of the most brilliant perceptions in Dr. Coulson's article [see above] relates to the published claim by OBE to be "a tool for change" in
society. Coulson responds with: "Change, which is a fundamental theme of, and preferred justification for, Outcome Based Education, has
long been an invariant in the quasi-therapeutic or 'religious' strand of American public-school education, the strand identified by historian
Richard Hofstadter as anti-intellectual. In that sense, OBE is based on a contradiction. Today's OBE leaders may claim to be leading the way
toward a future vastly different from the past; but in spite of frequent changes of name, the basis of the movement now called OBE hasn't
varied in a hundred years. In other words, the necessity of change is a questionable assertion. It all depends on what is said to need
changing." [Emphasis mine. Note also the ease with which Coulson repeatedly associates OBE with a "religious" movement.]
What "needs changing", Coulson continues, is apparently "little... except the brand names under which they market their curricula and
philosophies. In 1972, Rogers permitted me to quote him concerning how to deal with the many critics of his own version of the movement.
He said, 'I'd change the name just as fast as needed to keep ahead of the critics.'" Coulson himself then reels off a whole list of generic titles
which are all OBE in disguise: the child study movement, the mental hygiene movement, progressive education, life adjustment, classroom
encounter, sensitivity training, humanistic education, values clarification, youth decision making, critical thinking, mastery learning and
cooperative learning. [The variant names given by different states and districts for their "Goals 2000" programs follow a similar scatter-andhide
strategy, in their attempts to avoid tipping off critics with the telltale "OBE" label. Examples I found are "Outcome Developmental
Driven" (Mason City, Iowa school), "The New Standards Project" (MacArthur Foundation and Pew Charitable Trust), "High Success
Network" (by Spady, used in Oregon), "Affective Education" (widely used), and mysterious acronyms like "STW", "TQM" and "DAP". This
is probably why a search in the on-line database of the U.S. National Center for Education Statistics with the keyword "OBE" yields nothing
at all.]
With this in mind, we proceed to "what is said to need changing" by OBE architects and promoters - which, not surprisingly, coincide with
the things Alice Bailey and her NA change agents claim "need changing".
4a. "Old Misconceptions" Eradicated by OBE: OBE's own creator, William Spady, confirmed its purpose in accordance with NA goals:
"the complete transformation of our educational system [relating to] orientations - the attitudinal, affective, motivational and relational
elements." [emphasis mine] The "transformation" is so "complete" that implementing OBE in the U.S. requires the repeal of hundreds of
existing state laws involving education (in Washington State there are no less than 218 scheduled for cancellation - such as requirements to
teach the federal and state constitutions, concepts of objective morality, truth, justice, patriotism and the principles of free government and
citizenship; and also the observance of "traditional and religious" holidays).
Page 4 of 7
In other countries, the WCC is recognized as radical in even a more basic way: the Director of the Robert Muller School in Buenos Aires,
Argentina, Mrs. Gabrielle Roncoroni Christeller, commends this "new education" which teaches that the "human right of each individual [is
to] be transcended" [superseded] by duties "to our total planetary home, to the total human family, to the universe, to the heavens [the
Hierarchy] and to our role and fulfillment in the eternal stream of time". (Muller, "2000 Ideas for a Better World", Idea No. 1914) She is
quoting here directly from the outline of the WCC teaching priorities: "I. Our planetary home and place in the universe; II. Our human
family; III. Our place in time." Only at the end appears "IV. The miracle of individual human life." [Human rights activists, take note: All of
these obligations take priority over what we used to regard as "basic human rights". Do not be shocked to find that when your favorite
humanist group talks about "human rights", they actually mean "humanity's rights" and not individual rights. As Bailey taught, individual
identity is an "illusion".]
http://philologos.org/__eb-trs/naH.htm
2/26/2012