The Lie of “Accountability”: How Education Bureaucrats / Legislators Hijacked a Word to Deceive Parents and Control Students
Barbara M. Morris warned us in 1979—today, her words read like a roadmap to tyranny disguised as reform.
In a time when American students graduate high school unable to read at grade level or perform basic arithmetic, the public's cry for accountability in education feels not only reasonable—it feels urgent. Parents demand it. Taxpayers expect it. Politicians promise it. And unelected bureaucrats like TEA Commissioner Mike Morath pretend to deliver it.
In 1979, educator and whistleblower Barbara M. Morris warned the nation about a quiet revolution in American education. In her groundbreaking book Change Agents in the Schools: Destroy your Children, Betray your Country, Morris exposed the manipulative tactics used by federal and state education bureaucracies to transform the role of schools—from academic institutions into psychological reprogramming centers.
One chapter in particular, titled “Another Road to Change: Accountability”, now reads like a policy manual for today’s education reforms. While the word “accountability” continues to evoke positive feelings—responsibility, transparency, performance—in practice, it has become a deceptive tool for behavioral control and lifelong data surveillance.
The Word That Fooled America
As Morris writes:
“Most people think that accountability, as the word is applied to education, means teachers will have to answer for what Susie or Johnny learns or doesn't learn about reading, writing and arithmetic.”
That’s the illusion. The comforting lie.
In reality, “accountability” was redefined by education change agents as a way to track and measure whether students are absorbing the desired attitudes, values, and behaviors imposed by the state—not whether they are mastering academics.
A Revealing Conference
Morris’s insight into the weaponization of “accountability” comes largely from a 1975 conference in New York, sponsored by a division of the State Education Department. The proceedings were published in a booklet titled Accountability: Can It Be Done?
The opening foreword by Dr. Bruce Bothwell, chairman of the conference, did not mince words:
“Accountability, in the final analysis, is not concerned with whether Johnny can read. It is concerned with how Johnny behaves, how he interacts with others, what attitudes he holds, and whether he is developing into the kind of person the state desires.”
That is not a paraphrase. That is the open admission of state officials and education elites—who knew, even then, that “accountability” would be the lever for mass behavioral engineering.
This shift laid the foundation for the College, Career, and Military Readiness (CCMR) metrics now embedded in Texas law, as well as Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) mandates across the country. These are not educational reforms—they are behavioral tracking systems rooted in federal policy.
Outcome-Based Education: The Engine of Control
In today’s terms, this is what we know as Outcome-Based Education (OBE) or Competency-Based Learning—both of which are built on the same premise Morris exposed: that education is not about academic content but about “measurable outcomes” in behavior, social skills, and attitudes.
This is how Social and Emotional Learning (SEL), diversity “competencies,” and global citizenship metrics are now embedded in everything from math problems to science labs. Students are not being tested on what they know—they are being measured on who they are becoming.
Barbara Morris called it “another road to change.” And she was right.
Data Is the Weapon
Once “accountability” was redefined, so were the tools of enforcement. As Morris pointed out, accountability became a mechanism to justify:
Early evaluations and diagnostic assessments
Psychological profiling through classroom activities
Massive data collection on students’ values, emotions, and behavior
“Snooping questionnaires” to uncover family beliefs and social conditioning
In other words, accountability became the justification for invading privacy—of both child and family—under the false pretense of educational quality assurance.
And in 2025, we are living the full realization of that blueprint.
THE MODERN FRAMEWORK—TEXAS LAW AND FEDERAL POLICY
College, Career, and Military Readiness (CCMR): The Outcome-Based Control Grid
Under Texas law (Tex. Educ. Code §39.053), school district and campus accountability ratings are now heavily tied to CCMR indicators—a set of state-defined metrics that measure not how well students master academic subjects, but whether they are “prepared” for the workforce, military, or higher education through state-approved channels.
These metrics include:
Completion of a CTE (Career and Technical Education) program of study
Military enlistment
Dual credit course completion
Industry-based certifications
PSAT/SAT/ACT benchmarks
What they don’t include: reading comprehension, historical knowledge, civic literacy, or philosophical reasoning.
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) collects and reports this data annually to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Texas Workforce Commission, and Texas Department of Information Resources, integrating it into a longitudinal student data system.
This is precisely what Barbara Morris warned about:
“Accountability is not to the family... It is to the system, and the system defines accountability in terms of behavior, not knowledge.”
Social and Emotional Learning (SEL): Behavior Modification Disguised as Compassion
SEL has become a non-negotiable part of “whole child” education—promoted as a way to support students’ mental health and build empathy. But in practice, SEL functions as a Trojan horse for values reprogramming, subjective psychological profiling, and invasive data collection.
ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act) of 2015 mandated states incorporate non-academic indicators into their accountability systems. This opened the floodgates for SEL metrics, with schools now collecting data on:
Emotional regulation
Social behavior
Attitude toward authority
Self-management and group compliance
According to the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL), SEL outcomes should be "measurable" and tied to "long-term life and workforce success."
In Texas, TEA’s Strategic Plan 2024–2027 includes SEL competencies and “grit” assessments under its student wellness objectives, aligning with ESSA Sec. 4108 and Title IV, Part A grants.
Barbara Morris explicitly predicted this development. She warned about:
“Prying questionnaires to uncover emotional abuse and neglect… sensitivity training… and other techniques of change.”
This is what a Change Agent looks and sounds like…
Federal Leverage: ESSA and WIOA as Behavioral Compliance Mechanisms
Both ESSA (2015) and WIOA (2014) mandate state and federal cooperation to ensure a workforce-aligned education system. This includes:
Workforce pathways beginning in elementary school
Data sharing between schools, employers, and government agencies
Funding tied to student performance on social-emotional and behavioral benchmarks
Relevant Federal Statutes:
ESSA Sec. 1005 (20 U.S.C. §6311(c)(4)(B)): Requires states to include “at least one indicator of school quality or student success” that is non-academic.
WIOA Sec. 116: Creates a unified accountability system between education and labor departments, requiring outcome-based metrics on “skills gains” and “employment success.”
FERPA (Post-2011 Amendments): Allows sharing of personally identifiable student information without parental consent, if used for “education studies” or “audits.”
Relevant State Statutes:
Since 2011, and with acceleration following 2019, Texas lawmakers have quietly embedded Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) and behavioral learning platforms into public education law and championed and implemented by the appointed (TEA) Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath along to the Texas Association of School Administrators (TASA), the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB) and Education Service Centers (ESC)s. These policies, rules, and regulations were often disguised as school safety measures, mental health initiatives, or academic interventions. The result has been a widespread shift from traditional academic instruction to a model focused on psychological conditioning, data-driven compliance, and affective behavioral outcomes.
Key Texas Laws Enabling SEL and Behavioral Data Collection:
House Bill 18 (HB 18) – 86th Legislature (2019)
Codified in: Texas Education Code §28.002(q)
Requires K–12 students to receive instruction in mental health, emotional regulation, and interpersonal skills.
Mandates teacher training in trauma-informed care and behavioral interventions.
TEA tasked with issuing guidelines in collaboration with the Health and Human Services Commission.
Senate Bill 11 (SB 11) – 86th Legislature (2019)
Codified in: Texas Education Code §38.036 & §28.004
Creates Behavioral Health Coordinators in school districts.
Implements behavioral threat assessments.
Encourages adoption of SEL-aligned safety and discipline practices.
House Bill 4545 (HB 4545) – 87th Legislature (2021)
Codified in: Texas Education Code §28.0211 & §28.0217
Requires "accelerated instruction" for students who do not pass state tests.
Often fulfilled via digital learning platforms that integrate SEL metrics.
House Bill 1605 (HB 1605) – 88th Legislature (2023)
Codified in: Texas Education Code §31.0041 & §28.002
Grants the TEA Commissioner expanded control over digital curriculum through state-approved OERs.
Promotes formative assessments and adaptive content embedding behavioral competencies.
Senate Bill 123 (SB 123) – 87th Legislature (2021)
Codified in: Texas Education Code §29.906
Requires integration of specific SEL competencies into the K–12 Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS).
Mandates instruction in self-awareness, decision-making, interpersonal skills, and emotional regulation.
Effect: Institutionalizes SEL as a permanent part of public education by embedding psychological development benchmarks within state standards. It shifts the classroom emphasis from academics to emotional conditioning, allowing behavioral profiling under the guise of character education.
House Bill 3 (HB 3) – 86th Legislature (2019)
Codified in: Texas Education Code §48.104 and others
Introduces performance-based funding tied to College, Career, and Military Readiness (CCMR) indicators.
CCMR metrics include behavioral and socio-emotional outcomes.
Texas Education Code §29.906 (Amended multiple times)
Legal foundation for the "Whole Child" model in Texas.
Supports non-academic instruction and integration of mental, social, and emotional development as part of educational outcomes.
House Bill 4 (HB 4) – 89th Legislature (2024–2025)
Passed House – Pending full enactment
Proposes replacement of STAAR with NWEA’s MAP (Measures of Academic Progress) assessments.
MAP is a digital, adaptive assessment platform that includes SEL-based scoring frameworks and behavioral profiling.
Effect: Transitions Texas from academic knowledge testing to ongoing digital behavior monitoring. Embeds SEL, CRT-aligned equity ideology, and adaptive assessments into the testing infrastructure. Expands student data collection and reinforces state control over student values and emotional development through third-party vendors.
Together, these laws form an interlocked system of educational surveillance and social engineering—fulfilling Morris’s vision of accountability as a tool of control, not learning.
Texas has become a national leader in codifying SEL and behavioral surveillance into law. What began as an effort to improve safety and emotional support has evolved into a centralized, data-driven system that prioritizes compliance over content and psychological profiling over parental authority. The shift is not only educational; it is deeply ideological and structural, aligning state education with federal workforce and data initiatives. Vigilance, transparency, and policy reversal are essential steps forward.
THEN AND NOW—MORRIS’S WARNINGS FULFILLED
Barbara Morris devoted a significant portion of her book to exposing the language of deception. Words like “freedom,” “development,” and “accountability” were, she explained, redefined to conceal authoritarian goals.
“The real meaning and intent of accountability was unintentionally exposed in the booklet Accountability: Can It Be Done?... Not about reading or arithmetic. It is about molding human beings.”
Today, Texas parents are told that accountability helps them “choose” the best schools. In truth, CCMR and SEL frameworks bypass parental authority and impose state-sanctioned outcomes, often without meaningful transparency or consent.
And just as Morris foresaw, “change agents” are still at work—now called “education service providers,” “data consultants,” or “whole child strategists.”
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
Barbara Morris urged citizens to look behind the slogans and follow the policy trail. That advice is more urgent today than ever.
1. Demand a Full Audit of TEA and CCMR Funding
Where are the billions in state and federal grants going? Who profits? Who decides the values embedded in these assessments?
2. Repeal or block laws that codify non-academic accountability
This includes rejecting expansions of:
CCMR performance-based funding
SEL assessment frameworks
Digital credentialing tied to workforce metrics
3. Restore local, academic-based accountability
Return control over curriculum, values, and discipline to local schools and families—not bureaucrats in Austin or Washington.
4. Push for a Sunset Review of the TEA
As Morris warned: systems of control become self-perpetuating. The Texas Education Agency must be held to account for the collapse of academic standards, the explosion of data surveillance, and the ideological reprogramming of Texas children.
Conclusion: The System Is Working—Just Not for Us
Barbara Morris understood one thing with piercing clarity: the education system is working—but not to educate.
It is working to reshape the American child, not according to academic excellence or moral virtue, but according to government-defined “outcomes” for a controlled workforce and compliant citizenry.
In 1979, this was a warning.
In 2025, it’s reality.
The question is no longer “Is this happening?” The question is: Will we finally do something about it?
You can read Barbara Morris book by clicking the graphic below.
John Taylor Gatto researched this as well in his book, "Weapons of Mass Instruction"
We see the lack of knowledge in our high school sophomore. Spanish I and Spanish II are certainly not as rigorous as those courses were when I was in high school. During my junior year in high school, I took Spanish I. From "day 1" we were spoken to in Espanol - not Ingles! (This is her second year of Spanish.) Our teacher began the first class by saying, "Mi nombre es Senora Smith." We learned by immersion and by going to the language lab often and listening with earphones. Sometimes, I will ask her the meaning of simple words, and she has not learned them. She is a bright student, and her personality complements her academic achievements. Her mother has pushed the "dual credit" courses so that she can get ahead in college. As I'm the mother-in-law, I do not have sufficient input to change the situation now. Thankfully, she was educated in quality private school from K-8th grades. The push toward "career-readiness" seems laudable - UNLESS a person has read (or seen the film) "The Giver." "The Giver" is based on a series of books authored by Lois Lowry. I was disturbed realizing that "the state" determined the occupation/job/profession/career of all of its citizens. Citizens were destined from birth to do whatever job "the state" wanted them to do - including perform abortions. With the addition of Artificial Intelligence, the scenario is even more scary. Students will be robots devoid of the ability to think critically, question genuinely, and have any feelings or emotions.