| Welcome to Livonianeighbors.com. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. To ensure your privacy, never use personal information in your screen name or email address ("janedoe@hotmail.com" or "Billysmom" for example). Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Delphi Technique; The other side of school committees | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 7 2009, 10:50 AM (1,311 Views) | |
| Deleted User | Sep 7 2009, 10:50 AM Post #1 |
|
Deleted User
|
Delphi Method Report by Dave Ziffer September 4, 1996 Over the course of my discussions with all you fine folks and on one of the videotapes that Elyssa lent me, I have occasionally heard people mention something called the "Delphi Method", which is said to be used by the administrators of school systems when they get the local citizenry together for a pep rally. Basically the idea goes something like this: An organization (such as a school district) has already decided what it is going to do, but it wants to avoid the appearance that it has acted without public approval. So it schedules a public meeting which is advertised as being held for the purpose of soliciting community input. In fact the organization has no desire to solicit opinions; rather the real intent of the meeting is to give the community the impression that input was solicited. The meeting goes like this: Everyone arrives and sits down. After an introductory talk, audience members are told that they are going to be divided into N groups (N might be any number depending upon the audience size). So everyone is asked to count off from 1 to N going up and down the seated rows. Each person is then directed into a group whose name is the same as the number that he or she counted off. So for example, if you counted "2" when the count came around to you, then you go to Group 2. There are, of course, N group leaders who then carefully direct the discussion of each group. Each group leader controls the format and, to a great degree, the content of each group's discussion. Toward the end, group members are asked for inputs, which are then listed on a big sheet of paper by the group leader. At the end of the meeting, everyone reassembles. The sheets from all the groups are posted around the room and each group leader reads the list of suggestions that are on his list. Unpopular or unusual inputs are glossed over and downplayed, while the majority of attention is focused on those ideas that are generic enough that almost everyone would agree to them. At the end a summary is delivered and everyone goes home. The purpose of the countoff is to split up anyone who came in together, so that each of the N groups will most likely consist entirely of people who have never met, and almost certainly will not contain any two or more like-minded individuals who may have come in together. Once everyone is split up in this manner, the group leaders can then easily control the group conversations because dissenting or outspoken individuals are generally alone in each group, and such people quickly discover that they have little or no support from other group members. The purpose of the sheets of paper is to graphically display to everyone, at the end, that everyone's opinion has indeed been registered. And finally the whole meeting format is designed specifically to avoid community input; obviously a bunch of strangers divided up into groups and chatting for 2 hours are not going to accomplish anything of importance. I know about this technique because I have seen it used in community meetings put on by the schools here in Batavia. Thinking that this was the "Delphi Method", I decided to do some reading and find out more about it. What I discovered was a total surprise. First of all, it was very hard to find anything at all about the Delphi Method. It does not appear in ordinary library databases; I had to work with a librarian and look in some special academic databases to find anything. What we eventually discovered was about 10 or 12 books on the subject. The earliest and seemingly seminal book on the subject was written in 1969 by a guy named Norman C. Dalkey for the Rand Corporation (a division of the Air Force) and it is entitled, "The Delphi Method: An Experimental Study of Group Opinion". Certainly this seemed to be the right subject so I ordered the book and it arrived from inter-library loan within a week. This book is actually a bound research paper and surprisingly, it seems to have nothing to do with the technique that I described above, except that it deals with the subject of group opinion. In fact the "Delphi Method" described in this book is radically different and the intent of using this method is precisely the opposite of the community meeting method described above. Briefly, the Air Force was justifiably concerned about making the best judgements about long-range issues where no concrete answers could be obtained. For example, they might want to know how quickly non-nuclear nations might develop the capacity to develop their own nuclear weapons, or they might want predictions of global climate 50 years from now. Dalkey refers to all these sorts of judgements as "opinions". Let me quote from the paper: "There is a kind of technology for dealing with opinion that has been applied throughout historical times and probably in more ancient times as well. The technology is based on the adage, 'two heads are better than one,' or more generally, 'N heads are better than one'. Committees, councils, panels, commissions, juries, boards, the voting public, legislatures ... the list is long, and illustrates the extent to which the device of pooling many minds has permeated society. "The basis for the N-heads rule is not difficult to find. It is a tautology that, on any given question, there is at least as much relevant information in N heads as there is in any one of them. On the other hand, it is equally a tautology that there is at least as much misinformation in N heads as there is in one. And it is certainly not a tautology that there exists a technique of extracting the information in N heads and putting it together to form a more reliable opinion. With a given procedure, it may be the misinformation that is being aggregated into a less reliable opinion." So anyway, the research paper is about a procedure called the "Delphi Method" which goes like this: You have a group of experts in a field but they disagree to some extent (as experts always do) and you want to get a more reliable opinion than any one of them could deliver alone. If you simply stick them in a room together, you might get a good answer but you might not, because the dynamics of personal human interaction can get in the way of the facts. Dominant personalities, for example, can lead a group to ignore the inputs of weaker personalities. Or people who need group acceptance may be willing to forego their possibly correct opinions to avoid being excluded by other group members. So instead of having a normal meeting, you split everyone up - totally. They never meet. You solicit input from each member of the group entirely separately, by mail or E-mail. You then collect all the written inputs, summarize them, and send the summary back to all the group members. The group members then formulate a second set of opinions based on this controlled feedback and submit a second opinion. This goes on until the group reaches a point of relative stasis, i.e. peoples' answers aren't changing significantly on successive iterations. If you think about it, the intent of this technique is precisely the opposite of the community meeting method I described. The obvious intent is to accurately gauge the opinion of a group of people whose opinions are obviously desired and respected by the people conducting the "meeting". The irony of the name was not lost on Dalkey (who did not coin the name) because in the paper he makes a note about it, saying that "Delphi" is "a somewhat misleading appelation, since there is little that is oracular about the methods." According to the research paper the technique actually works; by experimenting using almanac-type questions whose answers were actually known ahead of time, but were of such a nature that most members of any group would be unlikely to know the true answer, the researchers discovered that groups that were managed using this method fared better than ordinary groups using face-to-face interaction. They also found that Delphi "groups" tended to converge toward correct answers with successive iterations. So anyway I just wanted everyone to know about this. There may very well be a method out there called "Dephi" that has something to do with the stuff that goes on at our school meetings, but if that is the case then it is something entirely different from the Delphi Method that was developed at the Rand Corporation in the 1960s. I don't know about you, but until I find out more about "Delphi", I'm going to be careful about using the name. http://www.illinoisloop.org/dz_delphi96.html |
|
|
| Deleted User | Sep 7 2009, 10:55 AM Post #2 |
|
Deleted User
|
Have you been on your school's "Math Committee"? Or the "Character Committee"? Or the "Literature Enrichment Committee"? Disappointed, or even puzzled, by its outcome? Then, read on! This page is for you! The Blandness of Consensus? At best, many "consensus" committees whittle away personal goals in favor of lukewarm conclusions that make no one happy. Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Winston Churchill wrote of the problem of consensus at the British Admiralty office in 1912: "There is one epicycle of action which is important to avoid, viz ... recognition of an evil; resolve to deal with it; appointment of a committee to examine it and discover the remedy; formulation of the remedy; decision to adopt the remedy; consultation with various persons who raise objections; decision to defer to their objections; decision to delay application of the remedy; decision to forget all about the remedy and put up with the evil." One of his successors as Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, had much to say about "consensus": "To me consensus seems to be: the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner 'I stand for consensus'?" "The Old Testament prophets did not go out and ask for consensus" "There are dangers in consensus; it could be an attempt to satisfy people holding no particular views about anything. It seems more important to have a philosophy and policy which because they are good appeal to sufficient people to secure a majority." -- Margaret Thatcher, October 11, 1968 Even Consensus Is Too Risky for Bureaucrats Consensus presents an even great problem for bureaucrats: What if a consensus is developed, and it is not what they wanted? "Have you ever heard anyone say that we need to 'move beyond ideology' for the sake of bipartisan unity and then abandon his own position? Of course not. When someone says that we need to get past labels and move beyond ideology, what he means is that you need to drop your principled objections and get with the program." -- Jonah Goldberg Consequently, many school and business committees are not really intended to find consensus, but rather to construct support for a pre-existing plan. Many schools make heavy use of social engineering techniques in carefully constructing and nurturing a variety of "committees" whose purpose is to rubber-stamp pre-established conclusions. Of course, there is nothing intentionally nefarious or conspiratorial about all this; this is simply the set of techniques that are taught in ed school as means for being "agents of change" and "developing a consensus" of support for proposed changes. These techniques (sometimes labelled as "Delphi" methods), were developed early in the 20th century, where they were heavily used by trade unionists and by progressive social organizers such as Saul Alinsky. These techniques are heavily in use today by corporations, churches, human resource organizations, trade organizations and social groups in forming a "consensus" supporting pre-constructed goals. It use of the "committee" along these lines has been a powerful tool used by schools in building support for changes in school policies or curriculum. The Purpose of Committees The key to such committees using these techniques is that the desired outcome is planned in advance. The purpose of the committee is not to design or plan or come up with a new course of action. Rather, the purpose is to "achieve consensus" on a desired course of action that is already known (by the organizers). Use in Business Many people are well-familiar with these techniques from their use in business, though they don't usually recognize them as such unless it is pointed out. Corporations might use such committees to enlist employee support for a new program or reorganization. The same techniques are also often used by trade organizations and professional associations to solidify support for the most commonly-held agenda items, and to winnow out more marginal concerns. Use in Schools In schools, these committees are used to get teachers, parents and others to "buy into" a proposed initiative. There is nothing resembling Robert's Rules of Order or any informal procedure even vaguely related. There is no open debate, no discussion of what the goals of the committee should be, and certainly no voting. It goes without saying that there is no process to select a leader for the group -- the leader is already a given, typically a school administrator who has been trained in the techniques of being a group "facilitator". Often, a reading list or reading packet is provided by that leader. This consists of a set of articles mostly stating opinions about some proposed course of action, usually with great unanimity in views. A major effort of the group will be "research" consisting of developing outlines and conclusions from that carefully pre-chosen set of readings. Great amounts of time are spent on discussion and in the creation of various kinds of "lists," often with participants working in smaller workgroups. Outside sources are usually disallowed and denigrated as being unprofessional works of political extremists, inexperienced naive amateurs, or religious zealots. If a committee member persists in pursuing a contrary line of inquiry, he or she will be told that they are not showing a good attitude about working with the group, or that they are not a "team player", or that their continued presence is disruptive and it would be best if they didn't come to future meetings. If the facilitator still hasn't managed to quell dissent, there are still a variety of avenues for regaining control. For example, further specific action may be assigned to a new special subcommittee of careful chosen members, or another more easily controlled subset such as only teachers and excluding parents. Small Workgroups A key element of these committees is the "small workgroup". Members of the whole committee are assigned into smaller groups to "work" on some subset of the "task" assigned. This has a number of effects. First and foremost, it breaks up cohorts so that like-minded people each find themselves as the odd man out in their small workgroups. One strategy that is extremely common in school presentations and committee meetings is "random assignment": As participants enter the meeting room, they are handed a card with a number, which is the number of the groups that have been assigned to. This technique is extremely effective in breaking up sets of people that arrive together. If three people feel strongly about an issue and arrange to go to the meeting together, they could exert influence if they were allowed to be in the same group. This technique prevents that. Beyond that, these small workgroups keep people from challenging the big picture, from questioning the limitations of overall structure or the material provided, and from limiting concerns to one's own group and not disturbing or questioning the progress of another workgroup. Have You Been Delphi'd? You can read much more about the use of "committees" by schools in these links: Delphi Method Report by Dave Ziffer, September 4, 1996. In this 1996 paper, Dave Ziffer, one of the original founders of the Illinois Loop, described his first encounter with a "Delphi" facilitated school meeting. He discusses the structure of the meeting, and tells how this led him to try to research the history of the technique. He also raises questions about the appropriateness of referring to the technique as "Delphi." Update on Alinsky Method / Delphi Technique by Dave Ziffer, November 27, 2000. In this subsequent message, sent to the Illinois Loop list in 2000, Dave Ziffer updates his discoveries about this method, cites original and subsequent references to it, and asks the group for further information. "The Facilitator: Are You A Delphi Target?" by Bill Carlson The Delphi Technique, and How it Robs Parents, from the American Policy Center The Delphi Technique: This website (from the "Informed Residents of Reading") provides a good list of sources are references for understanding how this technique can be used to "manage" parents. Here are some of the documents from this excellent resource: The Delphi Technique. What Is It? (Main page) How To Disrupt The Delphi Technique: tips on how to protect yourself from those who would use the "Delphi Technique." How To Deal With Difficult Parents: describes how some administrators are trained to deal with questioning, opposing and dissenting individuals. Dealing With Difficult People: the information referenced in "How To Deal With Difficult Parents" from the Association of California School Administrators, EDCAL - Volume 25, - April 22, 1996 Unmasking The Crime Against Parents: In many ways, the experiences described in this article about Plano, Texas parallel those encountered by parents and community members in Reading, Massachusetts. Reading school administration "mantra" says one thing but their actions reveal a different intent. A Reference Guide For Recognizing Political / Social Control Tactics: Useful for recognizing the tactics of some school officials and school administrators. Read this before your next "committee" meeting! Are You Being Delphied? The goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a predetermined outcome, while giving the illusion of taking public input and under the pretext of being accountable to the public. "But I didn't give my consent" by Joyce Morrison, February 18, 2003. This is a fascinating and well-written first person article on attending both "facilitated" sessions, and a session on teaching facilitators. The author makes these manipulation techniques both clear and vivid. Let's Stop Being Manipulated: The Delphi Technique by Albert V. Burns. The author gives some simple tips to open up a Delphi situation to real dialog and discussion. We're So Easily Delphied Because We Ignore Its Techiniques by Joan E. Battey About Consensus and Facilitation: This website offers a series of articles by Lynn Stuter on the nature of consensus and "facilitated" public meetings. The Delphi Technique. What Is It?: Here is a very brief excerpt. See if this seems familiar to you! "The change agent or facilitator goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms 'task forces,' 'urges everyone to make lists,' and so on. While s/he is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. S/He identifies the 'leaders,' the 'loud mouths,' as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument -- the 'weak or noncommittal.'" The Delphi Technique: How to Disrupt It What's Wrong With Consensus What American Citizens Need to Know About Consensus and Facilitation Illustration of the Consensus Process: Here's a vivid graphic that portrays how a "facilitated" committee leads to a predetermined conclusion So, Have You Been Delphi'd? This is a fascinating discussion thread containing numerous posts from a variety of people describing their own experiences with "Delphi" groups in schools, business, churches, community organizations, the military, and more. The thread was hosted by a politically conservative organization, and that shows up in a few of the comments. But overall, these first-person narratives serve well to alert us to the ubiquitousness of the technique, and the subtle but coercive power they have in forming the illusion of a "consensus." Several of the opinions make note of this disturbing subtlety. As one says, "I have encountered the 'Delphi Technique' several times, but in corporate America. I never realized what it was at the time. At most I had a vague sensation that something was not quite right, but I could not figure out what it was." A number of the comments offer suggestions for upsetting the Delphi, or exposing its mechanisms to the group at large. The Community of Sixty: Here is another parent report, this time on the use of a Delphi faciliated committee in a school district in Oregon. Alinsky for Teacher Organizers: this webpage presents a paper written in 1972 on the use of techniques developed by labor organizer Saul Alinski for use in teacher training. In one sense, it is a powerful statement of extremely effective techniques in promoting one's position. In another light, it is a chilling view of how to manipulate and manage opinions. Dialectical Education by Susan O'Donnell "Cloning of the American Mind", by B.K. Eakman. While principally about education in general, an entire section of this book is devoted to the use of these "committees" by schools to build the illusion of support for proposed changes. The Official Robert's Rules of Order Website: read this for the most commonly accepted way for how meetings should be run in a democratic community. http://www.illinoisloop.org/committees.html |
|
|
| Deleted User | Sep 7 2009, 10:58 AM Post #3 |
|
Deleted User
|
The "Delphi Technique" And How It Robs Parents of Control Over Their Child's Education One of the eight stated purposes of Goals 2000 is "increased parental involvement in learning." Yet parents have experienced a strange phenomenon when they have tried to follow the goal and actually get involved. They are rejected. They are not, however, rejected rudely or dismissed abruptly. In fact, most parents come away from a school meeting not knowing they've been rejected at all. On the contrary, school administrators openly welcome them, show them around and bring them into their office for a friendly chat. During that meeting the education official will quiz parents about their interests in education reform. The parents will be asked if they are a part of any locally organized group of concerned parents. They will want to know if the parents are affiliated with a specific national group or religion. After the interview, a smile, a hand shake and a pat on the back gives the parents the feeling that progress has been made, that the school is interested in their ideas and that their concerns will be considered and changes made. Yet it never seems to happen. That's because many school administrators have been specially trained to deal with those who seek to question the education "reforms" that are rapidly replacing the teaching of basic academics. In most cases a school administrator has no intention of changing anything the parent finds troubling. But he also knows that an angry group of parents can cause trouble for their plans. His job is to keep parents happy and quiet. He's been trained for just such a challenge. It's called the "Delphi Technique" and parents, who don't know they're being manipulated, haven't a chance against it. The Delphi Technique was first developed in the late 1950's by the Rand Corporation as a method to "forecast" the future. Companies used it to help make decisions in determining product development and how new technology would affect the market. Later, the technique was perfected to literally dictate desired outcomes. A panel of experts was placed in a group session and through a very subtle manipulations process to separate supporters from detractors of the official, desired outcome, they were brought around to accept a pre-determined position. Those who opposed the position were subjected to ridicule, divisions were driven between the two sides, until only one possible solution could be accepted - the pre-determined outcome. Once this group of respected authorities had accepted that position it was a simple step to dictate the outcome to the rest of the market. This is exactly how the radical Educrats are stopping opponents of Goals 2000 and Outcome-based Education. The reason the parents are quizzed about their interests and affiliations is to determine if they are potential trouble makers. If they are part of an organized effort to challenge "reforms" then steps will be taken to investigate, and possibly infiltrate the group. Here is a sample of how the Delphi Technique is thrust on such a group. At a regular meeting of a parents' group organized to stop Outcome-based Education, for example, a new, "concerned" parent makes his appearance. He may be a well-known civic leader that the other members are excited to have on board. His presence adds needed credibility and contacts to their efforts. He sits and listens, and he watches members as each expresses his or her opinion. He will begin to ask questions and play "devils advocate" as he points out possible objections to the group's positions. He warns them that they could be perceived as too extreme to be taken seriously by other community leaders. He's concerned because he just wants to see the group succeed. He poses as everyone's caring friend. As he observes the group he begins to evaluate the positions of each member, watching for those with the strongest opinion and those who may be a little hesitant in their convictions. The weaker ones become his target. He begins to question the position of the leaders, playing on the doubts or fears of those with weaker convictions or differing opinions. Finally, he begins to drive a wedge between them - always, he says, with the "good of the group" in mind. Soon, as a result of his manipulation, dissension breaks out in the group. Its goals become clouded. Eventually it will break up completely or take a radically different position on the issue. The outcome that the Educrats wanted is achieved. Their opposition has been neutralized. The Delphi Technique is used over and over again on all types of issues, not just education. It is the reason why change is rarely achieved, why opposition rarely succeeds even though, in the beginning of a community debate, it seems everyone supports those calling for rational change. How can it be that with nation-wide hatred of Goals 2000, it isn't stopped? How does Outcome-based Education survive? Why are our children trapped in such an education nightmare, unable to learn, even as the whole nation demands change? The reason is because the Educrats want it that way and they have the power to neutralize any voice of opposition through tactics like the Delphi Technique. The Delphi Technique is used in almost every college in the country. It is used on students to assure that they emerge with the proper attitudes. The Delphi Technique itself is a very important component of Outcome-based Education and is used on children in secondary classrooms. The technique is taught to those who are expected to go out into the community and implement the education "reform" agenda. Community leaders are recruited and trained so that they can use their influence to promote the agenda. The technique is being used in almost every school in America as parents attempt to use rationality and reason to combat an education "reform" program like Goals 2000 that fails to teach children to read, write or add and subtract. As children grow dumber, parents want action. The Delphi Technique blocks all avenues of change. With a smile, a pleasant manner, a hand shake and a steel shaft in the back, parents, who just want to save their children, are being deliberately manipulated by a controlling monster that stops at nothing to force its programs into place. Americans wonder aloud why nothing ever changes, no matter the outcome of elections, no matter how loud the protests, no matter how wrong the program. To see the reason in action, just visit your local school, voice some objections and watch the Delphi Technique spring into action - on you. http://www.americanpolicy.org/educ/thedelphi.htm |
|
|
| Deleted User | Sep 7 2009, 11:02 AM Post #4 |
|
Deleted User
|
http://www.iror.org/delphi.asp http://www.seanet.com/~barkonwd/school/DELPHI.HTM |
|
|
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Forum · Next Topic » |




