Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) views itself as a drastic break from current educational practices and a means of providing educational success for all students. Though not stated in overt terms, OBE also positions it self as a means of "emancipating " students and teachers from traditional practices which lead to educational inequity. This article reexamines OBE from a multiparadigm perspective of organizations and educational administration. This examination reveals that although there does indeed seem to befacets of outcome-based practice which are empowering to students and teachers, much of the system continues to be lodged in a framework which aims toward structure and control.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bloom, B. S.
(1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1(2).
2.
Bloom, B. S.
(1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
3.
Burrell, G.
(1988). Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis 2: The contribution of Michel Foucault. Organization Studies, 9(2), 221-235.
4.
Burrell, G.
, & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London: Heinemann.
5.
Capper, C. A.
(1993a). Educational administration in a pluralistic society: A multiple paradigm approach. In C. A. Capper (Ed.), Educational administration in a pluralistic society (pp. 7-35). Albany: SUNY Press.
6.
Capper, C. A.
(1993b). Administrator practice and preparation for social reconstructionist schooling. In C. A. Capper (Ed.), Educational administration in a pluralistic society (pp. 288-316). Albany: SUNY Press.
7.
Capper, C. A.
(1989). Student diversity in rural schools: Beyond "special" education. Educational Considerations, 17(1), 18-20.
8.
Carroll, J. B.
(1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.
9.
Cooper, R.
(1989). Modernism, postmodernism, and organizational analysis 3: The contribution of Jacques Derrida. Organization Studies, 10(4), 479-502.
10.
Cooper, R.
, & Burrell, G. (1988). Modernism, postmodernism, and organization analysis: An introduction. Organization Studies, 9(1), 91-112.
11.
Heshusius, L.
(1991). Curriculum-based assessment and direct instruction: Critical reflections on fundamental assumptions. Exceptional Children, 57(4), 315-328.
12.
King, J. A.
, & Evans, K. M. (1991). Can we achieve outcome-based education?Educational Leadership, 49(2), 73-75.
13.
Lather, P.
(1989). Postmodernism and the politics of enlightenment. Educational Foundations, 3(3), 7-28.
14.
Lyotard, J. F.
(1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
15.
Poplin, M. S.
, & Stone, S. (1992). Paradigm shifts in instructional strategies: From reductionism to holistic/constructivism. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education: Divergent perspectives. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
16.
Sirotnik, K.
, & Oakes, J. (Eds.). (1986). Critical perspectives on the organization and improvement of schooling. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
17.
Sleeter, C. A.
, & Grant, C. (1987). An analysis of multicultural education in the United States. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 421-444.
18.
Spady, W. G.
(1982). Outcome-based instructional management: A sociological perspective. Australian Journal of Education, 26, 123-143.
19.
Spady, W. G.
(1988). Organizing for results: The basis of authentic restructuring and reform. Educational Leadership, 46(2), 4-8.
20.
Spady, W. G.
, & Marshall, K. J. (1991). Beyond traditional outcome-based education. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 67-72.
21.
Vandercook, T.
, & York, J. (1990). A team approach to program development and support. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Support networks for inclusive schooling: Interdependent integrated education. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
22.
Weedon, C.
(1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. NY: Basil Blackwell.
