Instant Experts & False Authorities are such remarkable people: "They get so great a return of conclusion from the most trifling input of fact" (with thanks to Mark Twain).

 

Why do many people appear bright until they speak?

This is the one -- perhaps the only -- website that directly and honestly addresses the silent conspiracy of ignorance. Here is where research and proof replace fiction and dogma; where science resolutely replaces myth; where truth and fact replace fraud and fantasy.

The focus of this website is the False Authority Thesis. Silently and gradually an invidious bookless curriculum continues to infest uncaring or undisciplined minds with a relentless onslaught of pseudo-knowledge Click for details.

Genuine Authority Basis for this website and this webpage

This particular web page addresses myths, misunderstanding, misconceptions, and misinterpretations regarding the relevance, use, and benefit of computer technology with the mentally learning handicapped. The authority basis of this page is the following: (1) More than 25 years working with the mentally learning handicapped -- specifically, (a) institutionalized mentally retarded individuals (in Perth/Australia, upstate New York, and Delaware); (b) public school-based mentally retarded, including the once-called "educable" and "trainable" (in Smithtown, Long Island; near Rochester, New York; in Delaware; and in Philadelphia; (c) high functioning autistic (in Perth and in New York City and on Long Island); (d) low functioning autistic (in Perth, in New York City, on Long Island); (e) severely emotionally disturbed (Australia, New York, Long Island, Philadelphia).
      (2) Scholarships and fellowships supported Masters and Post-Masters degrees in the area of special education, single-subject research, and instructional design. (3) Federal research grant awarded to fund study of discrimination learning problems with autistic students. (13% of doctoral student grants submitted were funded that particular year.) (4) Publications in major scholarly journals in the area of computers and the mentally learning handicapped. (5) Dozens of workshops and presentations conducted across the United States, Australia, and in New Zealand. The focus: Computer-based instructional technology with the mentally learning handicapped. (6) An IEP Manual for teachers self-published in 1977 that was "wildly successful." (Quote courtesy of the past head of the bookstore at Teachers College, Columbia University who carried the manual in the bookstore and assisted in a daunting mailing effort that covered some 6 years.) That IEP Manual was the result of a research grant that allowed this author to work with dozens of teachers of severely handicapped students throughout the state of Delaware in the mid-1970s.
      (7) One of 15 or so graduate students selected to work -- all major expenses paid -- with the venerable Dr Lou Brown in his well-known special education teacher-preparation summer program at the Univ of Wisconsin in the mid-1970s. (8) Hired by a Dr James Tawney at the Univ of Kentucky in the mid-1970s to coordinate a year-long hands-on, in-class, practically every day lesson plan validation program with nearly a dozen carefully selected teachers and perhaps a hundred or more special education students in Philadelphia. (9) Spent more than a decade subsequent to doctoral training setting up, maintaining, and expanding the first computer program for autistic/emotionally disturbed public school students in the fine city of New York.
      (10) Developed the 10-module FACTS+ software curriculum for the mentally learning handicapped (and elderly and TESOL trainees) that was tested daily in several public school classrooms in New York City for nearly a decade -- winning a national award for "software excellence" in 1990.

In sum, then, the content on this webpage is the result of considerable experience and training. The content, in fact, is the outgrowth of some 25 years of experience in many public schools, with dozens of teachers and hundreds of mentally learning handicapped students using computer technology, in several locations around the world.

           Any questions?

           If not, let's get to the point ...

(Note: All research references cited below are contained in Biblio-Refs)

The Argument

For two compelling reasons, not all special education students will or can benefit productively from computer-based instruction. (1) To use computer technology requires a set of prerequisites which must be demonstrated or taught. Teaching computer-use prerequisites takes considerable teaching time -- time that, given full inclusion or partial inclusion, teachers simply may not have. Why? (2) Because full inclusion is all the rage. Full inclusion implies instructional parity; parity requires that everyone in full inclusion classrooms be assured equal access to the technology. Given that litigious fact (how do you spell lawsuit!), the issue of mastery level efficiency becomes central. Can computer-based instruction be productive for a special education student if (s)he is given access the computer, say, 3 times a week for 1 hour per access -- since that is all the time allowed all other students in the class? Depending on the functioning level of the student, the answer for a significant proportion of students in special education is a resounding No.

Important Terms

Educational Parity. Mastery Learning. Instructional Triage. Proficiency-Efficiency Cutoff. Efficiency Index. Competence-Deviance Hypothesis. Law of Parsimony. PC Prerequisites. Full Inclusion. Diminishing Marginal Return.

Brief Summary

Tax dollars are shrinking. No longer can national economies afford to subsidize special education at a rate up to ten times the cost of regular classroom instruction. Thus, "full inclusion." Mix 'em up and save money. The problem is that special ed kids need to learn skills to obtain job-placement status. That is not easy, when teacher time is increasingly splintered among various learning handicaps in the same classroom. Moreover, special ed kids must not only learn employable skills (proficiency), they must learn to work at an employable pace or rate (efficiency). Again, that is not easy, given the huge demands increasingly placed on the scare resource of teaching and instruction. Enter the computer. The computer can free up teachers and thus enable more students to learn more skills more quickly. However, can all regular ed students benefit from computers. Probably yes. Can all special ed students benefit from computers. Absolutely not. The use of computers requires a set of prerequisite skills. A small but still-sizable minority of special ed students do not have those prerequisite computer-use skills. Hence, those skills must be taught, if the special ed student is to use the computer productively in the pursuit of acquiring employable skills at an employable rate.

The Argument in (Some!) Detail

Question: "What level of financial expenditure on behalf of the learning handicapped can a tax base -- can any tax base -- support?"

Taxes and Economics 101: It does not take a Genuine Knowledge Authority to understand that the new "full inclusion" law (PL 105-17) has a whole lot more to do with macro-economics than instruction. The cost of instructing a "special education" student is 4 to 10 times greater than other students. That is real money. Those are your tax dollars. Warehousing disparate educational groups in the same classroom clearly will not educationally benefit either -- though it sure as hell will put a significant dent in blown-out special ed budgets!

The U.S. is a debtor country. Many countries with large numbers of learning handicapped students are heavy debtors, owing other countries a sizable portion of their GNP. It is that debt load, that debt gap which will cost coming generations dearly in terms of far lower living standards and more limited if not depressed lifestyles than our children and grandkids deserve.

The tax-base pie is only so big. Can we tax-burdened parents afford year after year after year (for how long?) to spend up to TEN times more on the bottom 5% of student achievers as we do on the "top" 5% of the academically gifted and talented students in our public schools? Of course not. Yet, False Authorities assert that everyone has a "right to an equal education." How measured? Where's the data? Where is that constitutional "right" explicitly stated? Who's kidding whom? The gross expenditures enabled in 1972 (viz., PARC decree; Mills decision) and fantasized in 1975/1977 (funding authorizations under PL 94-142) -- and then year upon year of re-authorizations thereafter -- certainly could not go on forever! And indeed, it didn't -- and it hasn't. The flow of outrageously huge special education budgets has gradually been reduced, if not yet stemmed.

We hear so often, "Buy American!" Fine. Buy American. But when Americans are producing only "special services" rather than "Specialized Goods," there is precious little to buy! China wins. We need to produce better steel mills to build better cars, produce better managers to run better plant and equipment, produce better shoes to allow us to progress more quickly, generate more excellence to enjoy greater success. As a nation, we need to improve. Greater output per unit input. Period.

Like it or not, our burgeoning "service industries" will not improve nor support the lives of our offspring. A predominantly service-oriented economy will not generate the wealth to keep our best and brightest busy, healthy, and productive. And if our employable best are unemployed or underemployed, trying to meet the needs of the marginally employables -- including those in special education -- may soon become little more than a pipedream. As a nation we need advanced technology, more inventions, and broader innovation designed to solve problems that face us all -- pollution, waste disposal, external military threats, plague-proportion diseases, racial hegemony, exponentially rising functional ignorance and on and on. To develop such technology requires that we encourage and support and reward our shining academic stars rather than our athletic stars -- that we develop the mind-power to get the bloody job done! Service industries alone just won't do it, as the Economic China Syndrome is resolutely proving. Group homes aren't enough, nor are the activity centers, the sheltered workshops, the "special classes," crisis intervention networks, and so forth. And grief counseling and sad-fests won't do it either, by the way. Hard work and equitable revenue allocations will.

Full-inclusion: Clearly, debtor nations can no longer afford to spend disproportionate percentages of its tax base on "special educational services" for the learning handicapped. Why should a nation leave its academically gifted and talented youngsters to fend for themselves amid embarrassing excuse and rationalization litanies by special interest groups? (Think about it: why should the latest computer hardware and software end up in special ed programs while other programs make do with outdated Macs and DOS systems? It is illogical, except to False Authorities!) Do not the best and brightest deserve an equal share of the "special education pie?" Do not the top 5% of our nation's Most Valuable Resource deserve their own "Very Special Arts Festival," their own "Special Olympics," "Special Schools," "Special Programs," "Special Awards," "Special Legislation," "IEPs," "Least Restrictive Placement Options," talent shows, individualized instruction, and on and on? In fact, what one might well hear knowledgeable teachers (derisively?) ask is, "How do you spell full inclusion?"! (Indeed, can you think of a better way to cut educational costs in general and special ed costs in particular and still argue the job can be done?) Full inclusion clearly has one decisive effect: It quickly moves academically and financially capable students out of inner schools into suburban private schools -- quickly! The academically best and brightest split! But that's a whole 'nother issue, of course.

Educational Parity. One key to a viable economic future is Educational Parity. Parity, not disparity. One feasible solution is to spend equal proportions of the nation's hard-earned tax dollars on the "most fortunate" and -- again, equally -- on the "less fortunate." Equal Educational Opportunity means parity. It does not mean a disproportionate 10-to-one gap in educational expenditures. Parity means equality of inputs, not unlimited inputs to ensure equal output for all groups.
           The issue is not trivial: For school programs successfully resisting "full inclusion," parity means that tax monies will purchase 6 computers for a special education program and also 6 computers for the, ah, "separate but equal" "regular" education program. Under "full inclusion" dictates, parity means equal access by all students to all computers in the classroom. Parity means the end of the special ed program in a school exclusively enjoying the tax-supported wealth of modern computer technology while the rest of the school plods along with first generation Macs or 486 Windows 3.11 machines. Parity means equal inputs, equal materials, equal instruction time, and equal access. Parity means to slice the tax pie equally among worthy recipients.
           Parity does not mean that the "special eddies" (as special education students are sometimes unfortunately referred to) are entitled to, say, 15 hours of instruction per week in order to ensure that they "achieve" the same "output" (performance) that requires, say, only 1 hour of instruction for other students to achieve. The tax base and teaching schedules simply can not afford hours upon hours of instruction that might be needed for a learning handicapped student to achieve a performance score equal to that of a regular education student. Only False Authorities support such dogma. Again, parity means that all students are entitled to equal access to tax supported computer technology. Parity -- equal educational opportunity -- means that no students are entitled to whatever access hours and instruction time required to ensure equal performance outcomes. Outcomes is less the issue; equal inputs is far more the issue. Such is the reality of a tax base stretched beyond limits.

Mastery learning. The question of parity raises the research-rich question of mastery learning (Biblio-Refs). Mastery learning deals with the issue of learning a task to a predetermined performance level. Succinctly, mastery learning involves two components that must be emphasized as critical to success: (1) Time on task. (2) Prerequisites training. Prerequisites is an issue discussed at length elsewhere on this website (Click for details). Let's address the time issue right now. Then we will focus on the negative impact the time issue has on special education students battling to learn under "full inclusion" constraints.

           Time on task -- Time spent "actively engaged" in learning materials and activities -- is central to learning. Moreover, perhaps the foremost researcher in the area of "time on task and learning," a Dr Bloom (1981) confirmed (as have countless others) that time-on-task is an "alterable variable." An alterable variable is one that "can be altered positively by the instructional process...with direct consequences on learning" (p. 383). Increase time, decrease time, ore even dilute the time allocated to a task to be learned and, not surprisingly, learning changes accordingly. That is precisely why time is 'alterable'.
          Time, as an "alterable" variable, raises the question: how much time? How many weeks, or months, or years of class periods should a classroom teacher devote to teaching a student. Given all the skills needed for independent function, how much time should a teacher commit to teaching Kathy, for example, a visual matching-to-sample task? How much time should be committed to teaching Johnny how to sort sheltered workshop product materials? Should there be a limit to allowable time on task to acquire a skill? Should there be limits to opportunity? When is enough enough? When is "time’s up" a valid deadline, a valid behavioral objective in itself? Given the rush toward "full inclusion," time on task will soon lose its status as a "central" variable in learning; instead, soon it will become the critical issue when trying to find time to teach the mentally learning handicapped. Here's why...

           Proficiency-Efficiency: Two Critical Questions (Anselmo, 1981; Bloom, 1981; Bruner, 1960; Carroll, 1963). Mastering a skill to a predetermined level invites the question, How long is too long for instruction? Can a full inclusion teacher or her support team afford the 3 weeks necessary to teach one special ed student how to complete a job application form correctly? When is enough, enough? When is it proper and necessary to say, "Sorry, but we haven't got time to teach him that"?
           There is a second critical question as well: Assuming sufficient time, is "mere" mastery of an important skill enough? Is proficiency enough? Is merely demonstrating a newly taught, finally learned skill -- is that enough? Can the community in general, can a sheltered workshop or fast food chain in particular accept students who can do the job but whose performance rates fall below the minimum standard for the job?
           It is one thing to get the job done, quite another to get it done on time. Teaching job completion is one classroom goal. Teaching fast-paced job completion is often-times a far more difficult challenge. For those of us preparing students for the real world of competitive employment, the issue is efficiency more than proficiency.

Partial SUMMARY

           So, do you really believe that slower-learning/lower-functioning (special ed) students will enjoy equal access to computer-based instruction?

           Does it sound as if those 1970 catch-phrases are ringing a bit hollow these days? Buzzwords such as "equal opportunity," "equal access," "due process", (free and) "appropriate," "least restrictive" -- these terms seem no longer to apply to a sizeable portion of special education students seeking access to current educational technology.

           Indeed! How do you spell class action lawsuit?

The Argument in (Greater!) Detail

           The ultimate purpose of teaching the learning handicapped is to teach them functional skills. Employable skills. Given the importance of job-placement in age-appropriate settings, the importance of work efficiency is critical to job success. Teachers must move beyond proficiency if learning handicapped students are going to succeed in the workplace. The mere acquisition of skills (proficiency) is not enough. Classroom teachers and job trainers know that students must improve work rates as well. Students have to learn more and to learn it more quickly to compete in the workplace. Students who learn more quickly will have more time to learn more skills, be better prepared for community placement, and have a greater chance of securing employment.

               Efficiency Index (Hedbring, 1991; 1998): Not every mentally learning handicapped learner will necessarily make effective and productive use of the computer as an instructional material.

        What do we mean by the effective and productive use of computers? Technically, we use the term as a measure, as an efficiency index of the units of teacher/trainer input that are required to produce a given unit of learner output.

         Accordingly, the smaller the number of units (minutes, hours) of teacher/trainer input (instruction time, quantity of materials, etc.) required to produce one unit of learner output (level of content mastery), the more effective and productive -- the more efficient -- will be the instructional process.

         The term "effective and productive" is not as antiseptic as it may sound. Look at it this way: It makes sense logically that the less the amount of teacher/trainer input that is required to obtain a given level of pupil output, the more effective and productive an instructional session will be. However, if a computer can take over a large portion of instruction and still maintain the same level of pupil performance as before its introduction, then the computer is an effective and productive instructional adjunct.

          What if there is no difference between the two approaches in terms of the performance measure? Where such indeed proves to be the case, the computer is, by definition, an effective and productive instructional material or aid. On the other hand, should the computer take longer to teach the same skill(s), we would conclude that, in that case at least, the computer is inefficient (it takes longer than teacher/trainer-based instruction to reach the same performance goal) and thus is comparatively ineffective and unproductive.

Law of Parsimony

         Can low-functioning students benefit from computer-based instruction? In fact they can. But the fact also is that, however -- and this is a different argument -- that the computer may be an inefficient tool for many students. The question then is this: Who gets the computer-based training? Everyone? Or those who can learn the most, most quickly -- are they the students offered greater computer access?

         Guided by the principle of parsimony (Russell, 1959; Etzel & LeBlanc, 1979) the question becomes an issue of instructional triage. The argument may be presented as follows: (1) There is a limited supply of computers for any given instructional setting. (2) There is an unlimited demand by learners for the limited computers in that instructional setting. (3) Therefore, who among the unlimited demanders gets to use the limited number of computers?

         Does every learner get access to computer-based instruction? Do only the lowest functioning get access? Only the highest functioning? Does the distribution time of computer use among computer users become a linear relationship of some sort? If so, is the relation inverse, whereby the highest functioning get less time so that the lower functioning can have the time they will need to reach a minimum level of mastery? Do the selected users (be they everyone or an appointed few) gain computer time for one hour a day, for 30 minutes a day; every day, once a week for an hour, or perhaps for however long it will take to master an instructional goal?

         Tough decisions indeed. Instructional triage implies that those who will give back the most, get the most. That is, users who are most productive and efficient will acquire the greatest number of skills in the shortest amount of time at a given level of mastery. Such students should thus, so goes the argument, have the most access to the limited supply of computers. Who are those students? By definition, in most cases they will be the higher functioning rather than the lower functioning users.

         Understand, of course, that instructional settings fortunate enough to feature one computer per student are still beset by the instructional triage (or, who loses out) dilemma. Who will have more instructional periods per week to use the computers? And should the computer teacher/trainer(s) devote their hard-pressed time in equal amounts to all users? Or should the higher (or lower) functioning users be accorded differentially greater or lesser amounts of attention?

         Again, the fact is that almost without exception, there will forever be an excess of user demand for an always limited supply of computers. To make matters even more complicated, the number of computer-contact hours with those computers will also be limited, if only because there are only so many instructional hours that can be distributed among the total number of available computer users.

         Instructional triage implies that an entry assessment screen should be established that identifies prerequisites for efficient (effective and productive) use of computers. True, practically all human beings can benefit in some way from computer-based instruction. But since the number of computers, the number of contact hours, and the number of computer teacher/trainers per school, clinic, and setting is limited, not everyone will or can be given equal opportunity to benefit.

          The issue, then, comes back to efficiency, given a nearly unlimited demand for a sorely limited instructional material or aid. Certainly, if time and money and contact hours were no issue, we believe that 99% (for purposes of argument) of all learners could improve one or more skills with access to computer technology. But such is not a practical reality. Hence, the lower the functioning level of mentally handicapped user, the higher the probability that (s)he will be more effectively and more productively served by an teacher/trainer-based rather than computer-based instruction. How do we determine who is more functionally appropriate for computer-based instruction? The answer: Whomever demonstrates a number of prerequisites has a greater chance of benefiting from computer-based instruction than those who fail to exhibit the prerequisites.

False Authorities Yet Again

Seymour Papert of MIT, the father of LOGO, spoke at some length about the negative impact of false beliefs -- beliefs that are tightly held despite the flood of evidence to the contrary: "These beliefs," Dr. Papert said in his classic book, Mindstorms, "are often repeated ritualistically, like superstitions. And, like superstitions, they create a world of taboos; in this case, taboos on learning (p. 42)." The fact is that not all learning handicapped individuals will benefit from computer-based instruction. For some learners, teacher-based instruction is a more efficient alternative.

False Authorities are into what isn't. For them, any statement which implies that some individuals might not benefit from computer-based instruction amounts to near blasphemy. It often seems that only dedicated parents and seasoned teachers appreciate that not all individuals will benefit from the instructional benefits of computer technology. False Authorities often are first to adopt unrealistic beliefs about computers and handicapped learners. At one extreme sit those who believe that, without question, every mentally learning handicapped learner can benefit from applied computer technology. At the other extreme sit the skeptics who believe that the computer can make little if any difference. In the middle are perched the critics who believe that yes, computers may make a difference with the handicapped, but that the difference will somehow in some way be "bad," "wrong," "trivial," "inappropriate," "rote," or "mechanistic." So much for the False Authorities.

           Accordingly, there are three main options for the classroom teacher: (1) Change the classroom curriculum so that less demanding entry or prerequisite skills are required. (2) Modify/adaptive the curriculum to include deficit entry skills as part of instruction, the expectation being that once task prerequisites have been learned, the task itself will be acquired perhaps more quickly. (3) Change the student assessment procedure to ensure that only those students with the necessary skills are allowed to entry the class. The onus is on the teacher. However, given the conditions of learning that teachers cannot change, onus notwithstanding, most teachers will discover – once again – that available options are overwhelming. Once again at least a partial answer is the incorporation of computer technology into the curriculum (Chapter V in my book manuscript).

     Least Restrictive Educational and Community Placement (Brown et al., 1979; Deno, 1970; Dunn, 1968; Peck & Semmel, 1982; Wehman, 1981; Wehman & Hill, 1981; Wehman & Kregel, 1989; Wehman & Moon, 1988; Wehman & Parent, 1992; Wolfsenberger, 1972. Educational placement is governed by law. Students who qualify for special education services must, under federal law, be provided a free, appropriate, public school education (FAPE). They must be classroom-placed on the basis of individual need, as delineated in the Individualized Educational Program (IEP). To the fullest extent possible, the learning handicapped must be educated with their non-handicapped peers. So says federal law.            Community placement, however, is governed by business; it is also governed by whim, bias, and prejudice in many cases and circumstances. Where the student lives and works and plays after school depends on two important variables: (a) The extent to which the teacher, job coach, or transition team has succeeded in helping the student develop functional, practical, employable skills. (b) The extent to which community-based business can or will employ those trained skills. It is all very much a matter of hard work, both on the part of the school and on the part of a community. Both must be willing and prepared to work on behalf of the students to ensure the development of employable skills, including social skills. The use of computer technology to train a range of employable skills is discussed in the following chapters (of my book manuscript).

          Competence-Deviance Hypothesis (Gold, 1980). The more skilled an individual, the more tolerant is society of idiosyncrasies. Accordingly, another objective of life-preparation is to ensure that all students develop social skills, including self-control. Propriety, manners, appropriate behavior, turn-taking, patience –- all such terms suggest the need to ensure a level of personal competence to minimize the level of perceived deviance on the part of a sometimes doubting and often skeptical public. Computers can help get this job done, in part. But teachers will need also to spend considerable time in training.            Experience suggests that computer technology can address both the efficiency and the optimality issues.

           Do not the academically gifted & talented -- OUR "best & brightest" -- do they not also deserve an equal share of the "special education pie?" Do not the top 5% of our nation's most Valuable Resource deserve their own "Very Special Arts Festival," "Special Olympics," "Special Schools," "IEPs," "Least Restrictive Placement Options," etc.???!!!            When and if, in the interest of Equal Educational Opportunity -- and that issue ALWAYS does boil down to Tax Dollars you know -- when and if we agree that the solution is one of PARITY and not a 1O-to-one gap in educational expenditures -- then the question becomes: Within the Special Education Arena for the Handicapped (vs the Gifted), will the lowest functioning get "Dumped Overboard" on behalf of the higher functioning?

           Again, the issue is not trivial: Tax monies purchase 6 computers for a special education program. Should children who are severely mentally retarded but nonetheless have the means/end, cause/effect, and on-task/eye-material contact skills have the same amount (in times of contact minutes) with a computer as the higher functioning, who have the skills prerequisite to learning to use the WP, DB, and utility programs to hasten the acquisition and generalization of skills? In the interest once again of PARITY, it seems that ALL kids should have equal access to tax supported computer technology.

          By way of summary, the computer can be a very effective an productive teacher's pet. Again, it is seldom tardy, sick, tired, bored, frustrated, impatient, intolerant, contrary, obnoxious, noisy, threatened, ambitious, on strike, dissatisfied with pay scales, arrogant, off-task, flighty! Indeed, the computer is always: ready and eager to work; helpful and patient; on-task and on-time; consistent though varied in its reward; constant and repetitious with its corrective feedback; able to respond contingently, contiguously, consistently, continuously; inexpensive and cost-conscious; humble and unassuming; quiet and pleasant. For most learners, the computer is a splendid instructional material -- fine scaffolding indeed. . . for most learners.

          Teacher/trainers know better: To learn a skill requires measurable, observable change in performance. Computers and effective teacher/trainers change pupil performance. Yet, even in the face of direct evidence to the contrary, outmoded (and often self-serving) beliefs about the supposed uselessness of computers are jealously guarded regardless of cost or sacrifice.

Biblio-Refs

....knowledge provides insight, belief offers comfort. Is life meant to be comfortable or insightful?

Biblio-Refs leads the fight against Falsies. Biblio-Refs attacks, through top-level research findings in 50 curriculum areas, mindless Hammerhead Thinking, the ignorance of False Authority and the logical absurdity of Functional Fixity.

Indeed, the target of Biblio-Refs is the False Authority, the Instant Expert, and the Pseudo-Knowledge that the False Curriculum breeds (click). In sum, the challenge addressed at this website is to replace fiction with fact, fantasy with research, myth with science. Otherwise, the process, practice, and pursuit of knowledge acquisition may well become little more than a fanciful "remember when" conversation.

References

"We have enough youth. What about a Fountain of Smarts!"

Biblio-Refs of course contains all the references cited in the text above; download it and enjoy!

Home | About | Products | Workshops | Pricing