Every single day for an entire month, she had a routine. The second-grade teacher, who worked at a small Catholic school in a steel town in Pennsylvania, would take breaks or use her lunchtime to slip out of the building and visit the neighboring church. There, she would silently pray. And every day for that month, her prayer remained the same. She was a young married woman, 26 years old, and she desperately longed for a child. Unfortunately, she had experienced multiple miscarriages. To add to her despair, her doctor had informed her that it was unlikely for her to ever successfully carry a child to full term. So, throughout the month of October, which is traditionally dedicated to the rosary, a devotional prayer in the Catholic faith, she fervently prayed for a child. But in her prayers, she also made a promise. Every day for that month, she whispered to God that if she were blessed with a child, she would dedicate her life to helping other children.
Then, on July 31, exactly nine months after the end of rosary month, her prayers were answered. She gave birth to a son. In light of this miracle, she decided to leave her teaching job and become a full-time mother. She finally had the life she had always desired. In the following years, she had four more children. Even though they brought joy to her life, she still made it a priority to keep the promise she made all those years ago. She started by establishing a nonprofit center for single mothers, which later expanded to serve communities across the state of Pennsylvania. She then founded a statewide parents’ group to challenge the state’s sex-education curriculum. Most recently, she led a fierce campaign against a new education reform plan proposed by the state’s education bureaucracy. While Ms. Luksik and her fellow opponents may not have completely defeated the state, they dealt a significant blow. The impact of their actions has reverberated throughout the nation, causing school policymakers to reconsider their education reforms. It is clear that any attempts to implement educational policies that guarantee mastery of subjects and promote specific state-defined values will face opposition. And it is highly likely that Peg Luksik will continue to be an active participant in this fight.
On a sunny summer day, hidden behind her oversized sunglasses, Ms. Luksik blends in with the other mothers sitting on metal bleachers beside a dusty baseball field. Her attention is focused on her son Peter, who is playing as a left fielder. Prior to the game, he was upset because he couldn’t find his green cap. However, his mother managed to find a replacement with a green brim and back, which is now seemingly satisfactory. At 38 years old, Ms. Luksik appears to be just like any other American mother. From the cars parked outside her home to the laundry basket by the kitchen table, there is little that sets her apart from the typical suburban mom who proudly displays her children’s artwork on the refrigerator with magnets. "I’m just a mommy who makes sandwiches for five little kids," Ms. Luksik modestly states. She is small in stature, fair-skinned, and her prematurely graying hair is a testament to her boundless energy. She communicates as much through her facial expressions as she does with her words. She often asserts that she is simply a mother, a "nosy mother." However, the reality is quite different. One does not need to venture far from her modest home to realize that. The phone rings frequently, often with calls from out-of-state individuals seeking a quote, answer, or appearance. From across the room, the calendar appears to be shaded in gray, but upon closer inspection, it reveals the packed schedule of a woman juggling numerous commitments – attending distant meetings while also ensuring she can attend family events and baseball games. In the same composed tone she uses to encourage her oldest son, Mark, to read at least 20 more pages of his book, she imparts a valuable lesson during a recent television appearance, "Politics is a game that requires both pressure and perseverance. You must not be swayed by the rhetoric that it’s a foregone conclusion."
A Groundbreaking State Initiative
The revolution commenced in March 1992 when the Pennsylvania State Board of Education became the first in the nation to enforce an outcomes-based education framework as state policy. This audacious plan aimed to revolutionize the content and administration of schools. It sought to empower local districts, eliminate bureaucratic involvement in regulation, and establish higher standards for students in preparation for a more sophisticated world.
Amidst concerns from business leaders and public opinion polls highlighting the dismal performance of public schools, outcomes-based education emerged as an appealing alternative. Whether seen as a comprehensive plan for reforming the education system or an effort to transform classroom instruction, proponents of outcomes-based education argue that it can reenergize the nation’s schools by shifting focus and incentives towards student achievement, rather than on factors like class hours and strict curriculum regulations.
The idea is that by clearly defining desired outcomes and setting ambitious performance targets, teachers and administrators would be liberated to take charge of their schools, devise new strategies for meeting higher standards, and explore innovative methods for guiding more students towards knowledge and success. While local experiments with outcomes-based education have produced both successes and failures over the past three decades, many reformers believe in its tremendous potential, and longstanding advocates are positioned to advocate for the adoption of this new system.
Pennsylvania’s Pioneering Efforts
Twenty years ago in Pennsylvania, a 45-member commission appointed by the governor released a report calling for extensive curriculum changes. The report recommended learning outcomes and emphasized various cognitive, perceptual, physical, artistic, aesthetic, and humanistic skills. The staff director of this 1973 commission was Donald M. Carroll Jr., now serving as Pennsylvania’s secretary of education. Another prominent member of the staff was Joseph F. Bard, who currently holds the position of the state’s commissioner for elementary and secondary education.
In November 1991, the leaders of the state education department reintroduced the concept. Frustrated with the limited progress resulting from school reforms initiated in 1984, the department argued that instead of merely enforcing minimum standards that might push local schools forward to some extent, it should set high expectations and provide support to help schools strive towards those expectations.
The state’s list of desired outcomes was extensive. The initial announcement outlined 127 basic outcomes and an additional 448 outcomes that stemmed from them. The list called for students to acquire knowledge of mathematical formulas, understand angles, excel in reading, develop scientific reasoning skills, and comprehend the principles of the Declaration of Independence. However, many of the proposed standards focused on less tangible skills.
For instance, the first outcome in a section related to "self-worth" required students to understand their personal strengths and weaknesses and learn how to maximize their strengths while compensating for their weaknesses. Thirteen pages later, outcome number 127, under the category of personal, family, and community living, mandated that all students should recognize sources of stress that impact individual and family life, and to select appropriate coping strategies or seek support services. Furthermore, students in grades K-3 were expected to identify causes of anger and hurt in individuals and families, learn coping mechanisms, and identify individuals who can offer assistance.
The list encompassed higher-order thinking, independent and collaborative learning, adaptability to change, ethics, communication, mathematics, science and technology, ecology, citizenship, appreciation of others, arts and humanities, career education, and health. Supporters of the plan believed that it catapulted Pennsylvania to the forefront of the education reform movement.
"This is the future of education, and there is no turning back to the way things were done in the past 100 years," states Mr. Bard, envisioning a system where "children are empowered to take responsibility for their own learning, exhibit independence, and foster intellectual growth."
According to Mr. Bard, such a system holds the key to our economic issues and the well-being of our society. The crucial aspect is that this metamorphosis occurs for every child, not just those who are already successful.
Opposition to the Plan Arises
Honoring Her Promise
In the time between the conclusion of her teaching career and the commencement of the debate surrounding outcomes-based education, Ms. Luksik remained committed to a promise she made long ago. This vow led her on a path that prepared her for the ensuing battle. She founded Mom’s House, a nonprofit center for single mothers in Johnstown, as an alternative to abortion and welfare dependency. Ms. Luksik not only designed the program but also secured support and funding while overseeing its operations. As Mom’s House expanded to other communities in Pennsylvania, she forged connections with pro-family activists. In 1987, she established the Pennsylvania Parents Commission, a grassroots organization consisting of approximately 1,000 members, which initially focused on revamping the state’s sex-education curriculum. The resulting criticism prompted Gov. Robert P. Casey to eliminate the state’s guides. By 1990, the organization had grown to 15,000 members, and Ms. Luksik had formed strong alliances with conservative interest groups in the state. It was her extensive network and unwavering idealism that motivated her to unexpectedly run for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in 1990. Despite the meager resources of her shoestring campaign, she garnered an impressive 46 percent of the primary vote in her unsuccessful attempt.
Following the primary election, Pennsylvania found itself facing two gubernatorial candidates and one exceptional political figure. Almost overnight, Ms. Luksik became sought after as a potential candidate for local office and a frontperson for various causes. However, she largely retreated from the political scene. Approximately a year and a half after the primary, she received multiple calls from members of her network who were concerned about proposed educational outcomes in the state and sought her opinion on the reform plan. One particular caller, Ms. Hoge, proposed the need for organized opposition. Above all, it was the abundance of new standards, with a lack of emphasis on academics, that astounded Ms. Luksik. To address this, she collected news articles and reports on the topic, delved into the theories espoused by its main proponents, and examined the background materials provided by the state. Convinced that the state had overstepped its boundaries, Ms. Luksik, a mother whose children attend Roman Catholic schools, was ready to engage in the battle.
G. Terry Madonna, a political science professor at Millersville University, observed that Ms. Luksik’s commitment is driven by her belief in a cultural war. It is not about grabbing power or control but rather about her profound concern for the dynamic between government and individuals. "The government bureaucracy at every level is trying to expand its authority, and, as taxpayers and parents, we are saying, ‘Excuse me?’" Ms. Luksik states, her face reflecting her genuine indignation. "I think that’s healthy."
An Unbalanced Struggle
The conflict over the future of Pennsylvania’s schools began in March 1992 and was waged through numerous town meetings across the state, ultimately culminating in legislative proceedings. Ms. Luksik often found herself at the podium alone, though at other times she engaged in verbal sparring sessions with representatives from the state. To impartial parents and citizens tasked with making a decision based on these forums, the choice was rather straightforward. A legislative aide, reflecting on a community forum sponsored by their office, jestingly remarked, "If it had been a boxing match, we would have called it in the first round." The primary focus of the opposition revolved around the expanded concept of education outlined in the outcomes, particularly those concerning values. William Spady, director of the Colorado-based High Success Network and a prominent expert on outcomes-based education, is dismissive of critics who argue that outcomes are rooted in values, which are inherently moral or religious. He insists that values cannot be entirely excluded from the educational process since even choosing a curriculum involves making a value-based decision. While critics may confuse civic values with religious ones, it is impossible to entirely separate values from education.
The Opponents’ Strategy
Ms. Luksik, in front of crowds ranging from a few dozen to a few thousand, utilized the state’s own paperwork and outside research to cast doubt on the program. In addition, she developed a strategy to identify key legislators and gain their support in overturning the new system. Along the way, she constantly challenged the state, questioning the potential effects of the new system.
Unlike traditional education programs, which prioritize group learning led by a teacher, the outcomes-based program aims to shift this approach by allowing individual children to dictate their own pace. Ms. Luksik is cautious about eliminating ability grouping, which outcomes-based education would do, and argues that advanced students would be the ones to suffer the most. She believes that the new system redefines education from equal opportunity to equal results and raises many unanswered questions. According to her, traditional education recognized differential achievement and provided additional time for those who needed it, while still ensuring challenges for all students.
She argues that the mastery levels required by the new system will demand less from top students, leaving many other children waiting for slower students to catch up. While it might look good on paper, she worries about the impact on an entire class if it is held back by just one slow child. She questions how many times the slow child can be allowed to repeat the material before making progress, and how many times the whole class should wait for that child. She also expresses concerns about the lack of significance mastery levels hold for parents and students, as there are no grades to indicate progress. To her, this results in students being stuck in a state of uncertainty. She criticizes the state for only counting students and not providing a comprehensive report card.
As Ms. Luksik highlights specific aspects of the program, opponents in other forums focus on the proposed outcomes and the values at stake. The strategy against the state is simple: demand clarity on how they plan to measure outcomes and address unsatisfactory performance.
State officials claim that the detailed questions and citations presented by opponents, regarding mastery learning and other educational reforms that preceded outcomes-based education, created a distorted picture of the program. According to Mr. Bard, "It was clear from the beginning that what we thought we were doing was not what they thought we were doing." Mr. Spady joins in, criticizing Ms. Luksik’s tactics of quoting research out of context. He believes opponents have cherry-picked certain words or phrases in documents to discredit the entire program. In contrast, he considers the program realistic and focused on achieving outcomes. He expresses surprise at the sudden opposition, mentioning that many conservatives view it as common sense.
Solution or Experiment?
However, the criticism continues. Ms. Luksik questions the state’s claim that the program’s costs would be minimal. She argues that the implementation of new assessment systems, including subjective student portfolios, would be expensive. Additionally, a massive teacher retraining program would also be necessary. She points to research indicating that successful outcomes-based programs in other school districts have significantly lower pupil-teacher ratios than in Pennsylvania. She raises questions about the research base supporting outcomes-based education and the lack of budgetary allocation. She asks which programs will be cut to accommodate these changes and how the state plans to manage children at different levels without additional staff. Unsatisfied with the responses she receives, she questions why officials rushed to implement the program statewide instead of expanding pilot initiatives that were already in progress in some communities.
Mr. Bard acknowledges that education is an art, not a science. He explains that their decision to move towards a system focused on achievement rather than time was based on their certainty and the input of others. He remarks that Ms. Luksik seems like a small person throwing stones at Goliath, but her efforts are ineffective in making an impact.
Worn-Out Government Officials
After weeks of heated arguments, the Pennsylvania House voted last February to overturn the state’s regulations on outcomes-based education. However, some leaders have since collaborated with state administrators to salvage a modified version of the program, reducing the list of outcomes to 53. Opponents, still on the offensive, will urge lawmakers to make the program voluntary during the November state Senate meeting.
The ongoing battle has taken its toll, causing experienced state officials to seek employment elsewhere, damaging the reputation of outcomes-based education, and making school administrators across the country hesitant about new reform efforts. Even now, the consequences of the conflict remain uncertain. State officials maintain that their modified plan still encompasses their objectives. However, others argue that it is now a diluted version that may not survive. Some suggest that the opposition has actually contributed to making it a more reasonable document. Ultimately, both the state and its chief opponents are striving to regain some of their lost credibility.
Prominent Pennsylvania officials stand by their strategy of labeling their opponents as extremists whose primary goal is to attack public schools rather than improve them. They believe this was the only way to put the debate into proper perspective. They also believe that they managed to regain some support by forcing the opposition to defend themselves. "That kept Peg in her trenches a lot longer," notes a state administrator. "From where I sit, the issues they raise cannot be logically addressed unless you accept their framework of a conspiracy," says Mr. Bard. "But we learned that we were speaking in bureaucratic terms while they were effectively communicating."
"We have never claimed that outcomes-based education is a cure-all solution," adds the commissioner. "It is a component of a comprehensive package that needs to be implemented. When combined with certification and funding reforms, as well as professional development for staff, we can bring about significant changes." Meanwhile, opponents, still feeling the sting of being portrayed as insincere, defend their tactics.
"It upsets me when they attack my faith and imply that, because we are Christians, we have hidden motives and no right to voice our opinions," says Ms. Staible of C.E.E. "They claimed we wanted to undermine public education, but that is simply untrue. If we had the chance to do things differently, I believe each one of us would sit down and be taken seriously. That’s just fair governance and equal debate."
An Expanding Battleground
During the previous winter and spring, she expressed her frustrations and opinions in 10 different states. Her primary audience consisted of parent and pro-family groups, taxpayer coalitions, conservative religious groups, and individuals concerned about the government’s plans. Now that summer is over and her children have fewer activities, she is back on the road again.
Ms. Luksik is keen on reminding her listeners that it was the education reformers who initially proposed the concept of large, all-inclusive high schools, open classrooms, and various other ideas that have since been reevaluated and, in some cases, abandoned. She seeks reassurance that the same fate will not befall outcomes-based education. Once they ponder over it, she claims that parents are unwilling to give their public leaders any more opportunities to create programs that won’t endure.
"For a decade, we’ve witnessed education bureaucrats conducting experiments, and it has proven unsuccessful," she asserts. "We started raising questions, but received inadequate and inconsistent answers, and sometimes no answers at all. We need to stop guessing. It is essential for the academics to understand that we desire something practical and that we are willing to engage in discussion. This debate must take place. Our children should not be subjected to experimentation."
Mr. Spady, who collaborates with districts to implement outcomes-based programs, argues, "Thirty years of hard work is being misconstrued as a decline in standards, but no one has worked harder than us to establish standards. I believe the idea will surpass its opponents, but I trust the common sense and open-mindedness of the American public and its leaders to guide us through this. We will only succeed in this political battle if local educators truly comprehend what genuine outcomes-based education entails."
However, in spite of all the conversations surrounding change originating from local communities, parents, and teachers on the front lines, Ms. Luksik asserts that education does not solely rely on grassroots mandates. "Teachers have very little knowledge about this, and to the ordinary people, this is just another state requirement and another experiment," she explains. "They fail to realize that they will be caught in a difficult situation when this approach fails. "To initiate this discussion, it would be beneficial to consider what we want from schools because everyone approaches this with a different perspective," Ms. Luksik adds. "Businesses want schools to produce a proficient workforce, some individuals want schools to nurture the child, parents want their children to gain academic knowledge, and bureaucrats aim to define and produce responsible citizens."
"You often hear about the importance of parental involvement, and here it is," she further emphasizes. "State officials are perplexed because they have been conditioned to believe that anyone who opposes them is an extreme right-wing fanatic or part of a conspiracy. But all parents want is to start with something that is fundamentally reasonable."
In search of an agenda.
"People are continuously searching for a hidden motive, but I assure you, there is none," she affirms. "I am simply an individual who genuinely upholds my beliefs. I did not purposefully go beyond what was necessary. These added responsibilities were unexpectedly assigned to me. I never contacted another state, never reached out to the media, nor contacted anyone to request opportunities."
She chuckles and questions, "Why would anyone feel intimidated by me? I don’t even weigh 100 pounds!"
