Are you a Delphi target?
April 18, 2010
Are You A Delphi Target?
By Bill Carlson
The facilitator turned and briskly walked away from a table where eight teachers were seated. As she distanced herself from the teachers, one of whom had just stated concerns about the practical value of the training, she snapped, “Oh, does anyone else feel that way?” Not waiting for a response from any of the 175 or so teachers-in-training, she continued a brief monologue that, in effect, diverted the group’s focus away from the teacher’s critical comment. The training session, barely ruffled, flowed smoothly on. The “errant” teacher, seemingly without support from peers, was made to appear isolated from the group for making such a “stupid” comment. (Often, an additional facilitator skilled in group control, possibly unknown to the others, is seated at each table. Many of us have had personal experiences with “table facilitators.”) The facilitator had just used the Delphi method to control the teacher’s “misbehavior,” and by his hapless example, the group had been warned.
What happened during the brief interaction between facilitator and teacher-in-training? The facilitator moved from table to table with a cordless microphone to respond to questions and comments. She paused to listen to a teacher who was mildly critical of the training. The criticism was amplified throughout the room. Instantly the facilitator turned her back on the teacher (rejection!) and briskly walked away from his table (cutting off further dialogue) and asked the assemblage, “Does anybody else feel that way?” Her question created an image of being fair, and not allowing time for a response seemed to go unnoticed. Her tactical monologue had successfully diverted negative dialogue. The series of maneuvers allowed the session to smoothly continue on. This scenario is just one of many such tricks used by facilitators skilled in applying the Delphi method of group control. It can be used effectively to defuse an upset student’s parent, or to bring massive changes to an entire K-12 education system.
For instance, a concerned mother makes an appointment with her child’s elementary school principal to complain about an ongoing classroom issue. The principal, after listening to the problem, calmly states, “But Mrs. Jones, you are the only one who has ever complained about this.” Concluding the conversation, a bewildered Mrs. Jones, having just been “delphied,” left the school site feeling as if she had behaved like a trouble-making whiner. Later, the administrator may look into Mrs. Jones’s complaint and quietly oblige it, or add it to the growing list of related complaints. The Delphi can also be used with pliant “Community Advisory Committees” to bring in peculiar curriculum or experimental teaching methods, no matter how ineffective; or the problematic Block Schedule of classes at local high schools; and non-phonics based reading programs. Do you like the present heavy emphasis on the dubious cooperative learning experiment? If not, a facilitator can help you like it. In fact for a fee, facilitators are available who can help almost anyone or any group applaud almost any faddish peculiarity: The International Association of Facilitators (IAF) can be located on the web at www.iaf-world.org.
“The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face.”1 The Rand Corporation pioneered much of the Delphi’s early development. Education adapted – or more accurately, corrupted – the Delphi methods into a means to achieve group consensus for pre-set group objectives. Education’s target groups, however, must remain unaware of their role in the process while being facilitated via the Delphi into “ownership” of the pre-established objectives. It is vital that the participants believe that their collective input lead to the final objectives. With some local flexibility, the pre-designed program must be in accord with federal and state guidelines.
The Delphi process, depending on the magnitude of the project, can be costly and take several years to achieve. A gargantuan example is The School-to-Work Opportunities Act, signed by President Clinton in 1994, which sparked well paid professional facilitators (change agents) to fan out across the United States. Their mission: Create a need for radical changes within the K-12 education system. Emanating through the U.S. Department of Education and Labor, the School-to-Work (STW) concept gained key-people acceptance throughout the multi-levels of government and industry. Following six years or so of chicanery, wrangling, arm-twisting, persuasion, and the Delphi, the STW network would be facilitated into all 50 states. California chose to call its version School-to-Career (STC). Acceptance having been facilitated through the web of national, state, and local levels using both public and private sector officials, STC’s “acceptance by the community” into Yucaipa-Calimesa schools appears to have been achieved. With it comes more federal and state controls. One such control is described on page 21 of Yucaipa High School’s Local Plan For Perkins III which calls for “Recognition of sex bias and stereotyping of special population groups in the classroom and implementation of staff development activities to eliminate them.” Assemblyman Bill Leonard’s letter (dated 2.26.2001) seems more forthright. The Leonard Letter identifies special populations legislation which in part, ” . . . will expose children in public schools to homosexuality, bisexuality, transvestitism, transsexuality, and other ‘alternate lifestyles’ under the auspices of tolerance education.” Sexual orientation will be included “in the list of ‘diversity’ that is to be promoted in public school curriculum statewide.” Was the local Advisory Committee informed about this?
Prior to final local acceptance the facilitator may use surveys and brainstorming sessions to enable the target group (The Community Advisory Committee) to claim ownership of the local STC plan. Committee members are made to believe that their input will be uniquely reflected in the finished community plan. “The ‘targets’ rarely, if ever, know that they are being manipulated.”2 Local plans are called “transitional” plans in the state STC document. Ultimately, the local plan must conform to federal and state guidelines.
So, are you a Delphi target? Possibly not. Especially so if you remain indifferent to education issues and to what the federal and state governments have planned for public school children. Well then, who is the Delphi target . . .?
Tags: Delphi, committee, facilitator, manipulation
Are You A Delphi Target?
By Bill Carlson
The facilitator turned and briskly walked away from a table where eight teachers were seated. As she distanced herself from the teachers, one of whom had just stated concerns about the practical value of the training, she snapped, “Oh, does anyone else feel that way?” Not waiting for a response from any of the 175 or so teachers-in-training, she continued a brief monologue that, in effect, diverted the group’s focus away from the teacher’s critical comment. The training session, barely ruffled, flowed smoothly on. The “errant” teacher, seemingly without support from peers, was made to appear isolated from the group for making such a “stupid” comment. (Often, an additional facilitator skilled in group control, possibly unknown to the others, is seated at each table. Many of us have had personal experiences with “table facilitators.”) The facilitator had just used the Delphi method to control the teacher’s “misbehavior,” and by his hapless example, the group had been warned.
What happened during the brief interaction between facilitator and teacher-in-training? The facilitator moved from table to table with a cordless microphone to respond to questions and comments. She paused to listen to a teacher who was mildly critical of the training. The criticism was amplified throughout the room. Instantly the facilitator turned her back on the teacher (rejection!) and briskly walked away from his table (cutting off further dialogue) and asked the assemblage, “Does anybody else feel that way?” Her question created an image of being fair, and not allowing time for a response seemed to go unnoticed. Her tactical monologue had successfully diverted negative dialogue. The series of maneuvers allowed the session to smoothly continue on. This scenario is just one of many such tricks used by facilitators skilled in applying the Delphi method of group control. It can be used effectively to defuse an upset student’s parent, or to bring massive changes to an entire K-12 education system.
For instance, a concerned mother makes an appointment with her child’s elementary school principal to complain about an ongoing classroom issue. The principal, after listening to the problem, calmly states, “But Mrs. Jones, you are the only one who has ever complained about this.” Concluding the conversation, a bewildered Mrs. Jones, having just been “delphied,” left the school site feeling as if she had behaved like a trouble-making whiner. Later, the administrator may look into Mrs. Jones’s complaint and quietly oblige it, or add it to the growing list of related complaints. The Delphi can also be used with pliant “Community Advisory Committees” to bring in peculiar curriculum or experimental teaching methods, no matter how ineffective; or the problematic Block Schedule of classes at local high schools; and non-phonics based reading programs. Do you like the present heavy emphasis on the dubious cooperative learning experiment? If not, a facilitator can help you like it. In fact for a fee, facilitators are available who can help almost anyone or any group applaud almost any faddish peculiarity: The International Association of Facilitators (IAF) can be located on the web at www.iaf-world.org.
“The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face.”1 The Rand Corporation pioneered much of the Delphi’s early development. Education adapted – or more accurately, corrupted – the Delphi methods into a means to achieve group consensus for pre-set group objectives. Education’s target groups, however, must remain unaware of their role in the process while being facilitated via the Delphi into “ownership” of the pre-established objectives. It is vital that the participants believe that their collective input lead to the final objectives. With some local flexibility, the pre-designed program must be in accord with federal and state guidelines.
The Delphi process, depending on the magnitude of the project, can be costly and take several years to achieve. A gargantuan example is The School-to-Work Opportunities Act, signed by President Clinton in 1994, which sparked well paid professional facilitators (change agents) to fan out across the United States. Their mission: Create a need for radical changes within the K-12 education system. Emanating through the U.S. Department of Education and Labor, the School-to-Work (STW) concept gained key-people acceptance throughout the multi-levels of government and industry. Following six years or so of chicanery, wrangling, arm-twisting, persuasion, and the Delphi, the STW network would be facilitated into all 50 states. California chose to call its version School-to-Career (STC). Acceptance having been facilitated through the web of national, state, and local levels using both public and private sector officials, STC’s “acceptance by the community” into Yucaipa-Calimesa schools appears to have been achieved. With it comes more federal and state controls. One such control is described on page 21 of Yucaipa High School’s Local Plan For Perkins III which calls for “Recognition of sex bias and stereotyping of special population groups in the classroom and implementation of staff development activities to eliminate them.” Assemblyman Bill Leonard’s letter (dated 2.26.2001) seems more forthright. The Leonard Letter identifies special populations legislation which in part, ” . . . will expose children in public schools to homosexuality, bisexuality, transvestitism, transsexuality, and other ‘alternate lifestyles’ under the auspices of tolerance education.” Sexual orientation will be included “in the list of ‘diversity’ that is to be promoted in public school curriculum statewide.” Was the local Advisory Committee informed about this?
Prior to final local acceptance the facilitator may use surveys and brainstorming sessions to enable the target group (The Community Advisory Committee) to claim ownership of the local STC plan. Committee members are made to believe that their input will be uniquely reflected in the finished community plan. “The ‘targets’ rarely, if ever, know that they are being manipulated.”2 Local plans are called “transitional” plans in the state STC document. Ultimately, the local plan must conform to federal and state guidelines.
So, are you a Delphi target? Possibly not. Especially so if you remain indifferent to education issues and to what the federal and state governments have planned for public school children. Well then, who is the Delphi target . . .?
Tags: Delphi, committee, facilitator, manipulation