That was a longer writing break than I had intended but I got called up for jury duty, needed CLE credits, threw a 90th birthday party, and kept everyone happy last week with turkey, etc. Mostly though I was taken aback shortly after I wrote the last post when the National Academy of Sciences released an on-point and thoroughly alarming paper called “Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities By Design” that made it crystal clear that the ‘science’ is about redesigning citizens–you, me, and our children–at the level of our ‘motivation, interest, and identity’. Since I have seen this vision before, let me go back and quote from a 1992 book called Harmonic Learning by James Moffett, who was involved with both the true aims of learning standards and Carnegie-funded innovative curricula before that. Since what was innovative before is now required learning experiences that are ‘relevant,’ ‘authentic,’ and foster desired competencies, let’s see what Moffett aimed for.
Moffett aimed at what he called the “inner system” and he rejected the transmission of existing knowledge because it would preserve identification with what exists now, instead of what could be. He wanted activities and experiences that would create a (bolding is mine):
“generation of students who will have thoughts we have not had before. It is clear that the nation’s and the planet’s problems cannot be solved by just thinking along the lines we do now according to our heritage. Societies relying on conventional wisdom are doomed. They need instead some breathtakingly new ideas that will never come from a cookie-cutter curriculum designed to relay some gist of what is known and thought now…If we don’t enable the young to transform the culture, we won’t have one to transmit…If we educate youngsters to transcend their heritage, they will be able to transform it and lead other cultures to do the same.”
That quote from more than 25 years ago fits with a story published on November 13 called “Why Zero-Based Thinking is Mission Critical in Reimagining Education” in case anyone thinks it is not still what drives learning standards. Zero-Based Thinking strikes at the limitations placed on thinking “by existing practices” and the “system we’ve inherited” to stress the “thinking our society demands we come up with…therein lies the block that prevents so many from getting to Zero-Based Thinking. We know too much…change demands we break those ties that bind…change demands that we see opportunities, instead of simply seeing a structure…On the other hand, if we see opportunities, we can focus on the possibilities.”
That’s why the Citizen Science paper wants to move “beyond a simple view of learning as an individual acquiring a fixed body of declarative facts and procedural knowledge to the recognition that learning is embedded in social interactions and involves complex reasoning and reflection.” That crucial shift puts the “inner system” of each citizen on the menu for reeducation so that the “critical aspects of program design that can engage cognitive, affective, and social outcomes” can be politically mandated. Those conceptual, intrapersonal and interpersonal outcomes are the specified ‘learning objectives’ and getting them into place at a neural level is the new purpose of curricula and prescribed learning activities and experiences. That we are the entities that must be transformed through schools and also the media is why citizen science insists that “motivation, interest, and identity…are learning outcomes themselves.”
We know from the previous post that the desired neural change needs that perception of autonomy, even though it is illusory in a world of globally prescribed learning standards, implemented locally. After all, last week the OECD (the creator of the influential PISA) released a draft document called BASIC–A Toolkit and Ethical guidelines for Applying Behavioural Insights in Public Policy that freely admitted targeting “the way individuals and groups process information and make decisions” for transformational change purposes. BASIC is an acronym for Behaviour, Analysis, Strategy, Intervention, and Change. One of the BASIC tools is what it calls the ABCD Framework. That’s right. It wants education to target individual’s at the “inner system” level of Attention, Belief Formation, Choice, and, finally, Determination.
The ABCD framework has the graphic of a circle and makes it clear that we citizens are being molded at the level of our mental models to ultimately be motivated to act in desired ways without ever recognizing just how manipulated we are. No wonder the OECD and its UNESCO partner are pushing competency-based education worldwide. We don’t have to intuit anything after looking at such a graphic, but like those ubiquitous Ronco holiday commercials when I was a child, “Wait! There’s more!” Tomorrow, in Incheon, Korea, the OECD commences its 6th OECD World Forum. https://thriveglobal.com/stories/the-future-of-well-being/ The draft programme lays out that “Navigating the most pressing well-being challenges facing governments and citizens in the future will require new ways of measuring, thinking and acting. More than ever, many of these challenges will need coordinated approaches and collective action, both within and between countries.”
With one of the sessions having the name “A psychological approach to the future of well-being” featuring Positive Education’s Richard Layard, we once again do not need to speculate on the how of the desired transformation. Let me quote though from what the phrase “Governance in a complex world” actually means, especially since another panel is “Rethinking the State for the 21st Century.” If, as I have been warning, the meaning of the term ‘governance’ now is about rewiring desired citizen characteristics in at a neural level using poorly understood learning standards and competency frameworks, the following verbiage from the forum makes perfect sense and fits with BASIC and that ABCD Framework.
“These sessions will address the new modes of governance that are needed to ensure inclusive growth and sustainable well-being in the coming years. They will address issues such as the need for an ’empowering state’ that invests in fostering equality and improving people’s lives, how governments can and should work together with non-state actors from the private sector and civil society, how to ensure international cooperation into the future, how to make the connection between local action and global realities, and how to rebuild trust amongst citizens.”
Among the panelists at the Future of Well-being World Forum are the producers of the Global Happiness Policy Report 2018 (GHPR), which we should recall pushed Positive Education as the answer, just like our current US Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos. http://invisibleserfscollar.com/subservient-and-malleable-students-devos-federalizes-our-moral-obligations/ Looks like we could substitute the word ‘globalizes’ for ‘federalizes’, given what is going on this week in Incheon. I found my notes from reading that report and it is pertinent to everything in this post and other papers that came out this month I will cover in the next post.
“The global movement to put happiness at the center of governance reflects a mix of inspiring idealism and down-to earth realism…Good governance is nothing less nor more than political leaders acting for the average citizen and pursuing the common good.”
I guess that’s how the powers-that-be justify trying to redesign and transform the world starting at the level of the human mind using citizen science, learning standards, and the ABCD Framework, just for starters. GHPR openly pushes “cognitive behavioural therapy” in schools and classrooms aimed “not just at removing negative thoughts but at cultivating positive attitudes and activities.” That’s one way, I suppose, to “rebuild trust amongst citizens”, merited or not. Remember, in the name of Promoting Mental Health for All, GHPR wants to no longer focus “on treating those who are in serious distress,” but to target everyone, all of us citizens is one way to put it, especially through the schools, so we “can enable people to avoid distress in the first place, or to develop the inner means to handle distress themselves when it arises. In other words, we should aim at a society in which people have the inner resources to flourish.”
Can we target those ‘inner means’ or ‘inner resources’, especially by deceitful narratives about education reforms, to advance political and social transformation without shifting towards what used to be recognized as totalitarianism in fact? I don’t think so, which is why I persevere in writing about these painful aims for education. We, and our children, are Ground Zero for all these plans that fit together like a geared mechanism ready to roll.
I want to close with what GHPR wants all children to become as the new primary purpose of education because it fits with where I want to pick up in the next post.
“Above all, this means children acquiring:
*compassionate and cooperative values and behaviour, and
*understanding their own emotions and those of others, and developing the skills to manage those emotions.
No wonder all children can succeed, achieve, and learn in the 21st century. They can be neurally rewired with the right prescribed activities and experiences to a desired transformative, psychological template.
Excellent, must read and share article. Thanks.
The other day I read a self described “lefty’s ” quip; words to the effect:
“How do we expect the millennials to start a revolution when they are too afraid to even order pizza over the phone.”
And I thought well, there you have it. That is an accurate, albeit incomplete in understanding, observation. The institutionalized and media reinforced neural changes are working.
We have , increasingly, a voting age populace that perceives themselves as autonomous, righteous and on fire for some “democratic” change but which is sufficiently infantilized so that their internal ” governor’ will defer to whatever authorities tell them to do. For The Common Good.
https://knowledgeworks.org/resources/forecast-5/ came out November 27 after I wrote this post. “exponential advances in digital technologies” becomes the rationale that “require us to redefine our relationships with one another, with our institutions and even with ourselves.” Wholesale transformation consistent to what Uncle Karl referred to as little ‘c’ communism that would come about through the new technologies capitalism could produce. Instead, of recognizing head-on what we are dealing with as the Human Development Society is being put into place at the level of the human mind, we get one of the creators of the Heritage Foundation playing “Look, Squirrel!” as if China, the USSR, and Democratic Socialists of America are the only representatives of Marxian plans in the 21st century. https://spectator.org/what-americans-must-know-about-socialism/
Notice how that Forecast calls for “Ethical frameworks developed by cooperative groups of interdisciplinary professionals, policymakers, community members, educators and learners will be critical for assessing the risks, benefits and challenges of living in a world embedded with algorithms and artificial intelligence.”
The Forecast also tells us that “individuals, nonprofits and volunteer organizations… are using participatory media, machine learning and data analytics to fill a growing governance gap, with hopes of reweaving the social fabric and redefining civic engagement.”
The Forecast also called for “Accelerating Brains,” which is one way to sell this intentional rewiring for collectivism. It gets pitched as “Learning how to anticipate and evaluate personal brain upgrades will lead people to redefine our notions of brain health, our ability to shape it and our sense of self.”
Meanwhile, the False Narrative keeps hammering that this is all in the name of “workforce development” instead of the actual political and social revolution being put in place.
The good news is my tree is up with lights on it and some decorations. The bad news is one of my children got a lively kitten this past summer and we are not sure he will not try to climb the trunk into the limbs.
Look at the UN’s “Repairing the World” agenda being put out in the name of the Holocaust, much like what we covered in this post and with the Facing History curriculum.
So what colleges are even offering true academic courses of study at this point? This question is especially relevant since my oldest is a HS junior (home-schooled).
They have all changed more than you can imagine and even Hillsdale views the purpose of curriculum as creating the desired character and sense-making in the student, instead of transmission of knowledge. I cover higher ed in Credentialed to Destroy, but these older posts from 2012 will also help anyone appreciate the why behind the changes. It also shows who the drivers are. The same people and institutions driving the k-12 changes.
http://invisibleserfscollar.com/college-ready-as-a-goal-of-k-12-is-not-helpful-if-first-you-gut-the-historic-purpose-of-college/ was followed by this post. http://invisibleserfscollar.com/constructing-an-alternative-vision-of-either-the-natural-or-human-world-as-the-basis-for-a-college-degree/
The Lumina Foundation mentioned in the 2nd post has taken up doing ‘Convenings’ of metropolitan areas to get this agenda in place. They work closely together with Strive Together in these Convenings. Strive Together is( or was until recently) an affiliate of Knowledge Works that is behind the Forecast 5.0 I linked to above yesterday.
As CtD pointed out with details higher ed is an integral part of the Turchenko vision of how to transform the West in an MH direction given its advanced state of ICT technology.
Welcome to ISC.