|
Tough Choices or Tough Times: The Report of the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce | 
 enlarge | Author: National Center On Education And The Economy
Publisher: Jossey-Bass
Category: Book
List Price: $19.95
Buy Used: $1.82
You Save: $18.13 (91%)
New (14) Used (24) from $1.82
Avg. Customer Rating:  8 reviews
Sales Rank: 112256
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 208
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.9
Dimensions (in): 9 x 7.3 x 0.6
ISBN: 0787995983
Dewey Decimal Number: 331.25920973
EAN: 9780787995980
ASIN: 0787995983
Publication Date: December 22, 2006
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Shows some signs of wear, and may have some markings on the inside. 100% Money Back Guarantee. Shipped to over one million happy customers. Your purchase benefits world literacy!
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Tough Choices or Tough Times calls for first redesign of the American education system in a century. This report of the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce shows how the dynamics of the global economy will lead to a steady decline in the American standard of living if this country does not undertake the first thorough overhaul of its education system in a century. It shows how our country can graduate 950f our students (not two-thirds, as it does now) after 12 years and the majority after only 10 years of grade school. It reveals how billions of dollars can be saved by changing the way students progress through the grades and how the money saved could be used to build high quality early childhood education systems, attract the best and brightest teachers, and provide the resources for even the most disadvantaged students to reach world class standards. This hard-hitting analysis describes the kind of economy needed to sustain our current standard of living and kinds of skills and knowledge that American workers need to make that economy work. It also details the dramatic changes in governance, finance, organization, and management of the American education and training systems that are needed. Tough Choices or Tough Times was written for anyone concerned with the future of this country and the state of our schools and our job training systems. It provides a well-researched analysis of the issues and a compelling set of proposals for changing our system of education. A CHOICE Outstanding Academic Title, 2007 National Center in Education and the Economy (NCEE) is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to providing young people with the world-class skills that will allow them to succeed in a global economy. The 26-member commission includes former Cabinet secretaries of labor and education, Senators, Members of Congress, school superintendents, CEOs of major firms, union leaders, and governors.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 3 more reviews...
 Let's call it what it is--Marxism April 7, 2008
1 out of 5 found this review helpful
The proposals of the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce are an insidious seduction to the implementation of Marxism, both in theory and in practice. The report, entitled TOUGH CHOICE OR TOUGH TIMES throws only two possibilities our way: Either we resign ourselves to "continued decline in wages with very long working hours," or we completely revamp or entire educational system by adopting "internationally benchmarked standards for educating [our] students and [our] workers."
At one time, the purpose of education was to accumulate knowledge, and to gain an understanding of the world around us. Not anymore. Now the purpose of education in the United States is exactly the same as the purpose of education in Marxist regimes: to supply a government-orchestrated workforce that is designed by the State and for the State. Our children are no longer our children; they are now designated by the State as "global citizens." The goal of education is to ensure that each citizen lives his life in total submission to the State. Here are some excerpts from the report:
"Our first step is creating a set of Board Examinations... ...Students who score well enough will be guaranteed the right to go to their community college to begin a program leading to a two-year technical degree or a two-year program designed to enable the student to transfer later into a four-year state college... ...assuming they do well enough on their second set of Board exams, they can go off to a selective college or university..."
"Many of our teachers are superb. But we have for a long time gotten better teachers than we deserved because of the limited opportunities for women and minorities in our workforce. Those opportunities are far wider now, and we are left with the reality that we are now recruiting more and more of our teachers from the bottom third of the high school students going to college than is wise. To succeed, we must recruit many more from the top third."
Do you see the racism and gender bias here? Now we have to revamp the system. (This will also ensure that the elite of our new Marxist society will be socially engineered by those presently in power.) Read on:
"We would have teachers employed by the state, not the local districts, on a statewide salary schedule... ...The current policies regarding teacher education would be scrapped. The state would create a new Teacher Development Agency charged with recruiting, training, and certifying teachers. The state would launch national recruiting campaigns, allocate slots for training the needed number of teachers... ...then the task will be to create instructional materials fashioned in the same spirit and train our teachers to use the standards, assessments, syllabi, and materials as well as possible..."
The State will decide what jobs will be available and then train only a select number of people to fill those jobs. Freedom of choice is a thing of the past. The State is self-serving and has a conflict of interest when it comes to education. Here is a perfect example: Have you ever wondered why our literacy rates are so low in the U.S.? Here is the reason according to this report:
"The governance, organizational, and management scheme of American schools was created in the early years of the 20th century to match the industrial organization of the time. It was no doubt appropriate for an era when most work required relatively low literacy levels...and efficiency of a rather mechanical sort was the highest value of the system."
So the "dumbing down" of American students was part of a management scheme. Now we are supposed to trust these same managers with a new management scheme. Schools would no longer be owned by the local school district. Instead, the local districts would be responsible for connecting the schools to "a wide range of social services," like psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, etc. Our kids are all sick, you know. And guess what is in store for disadvantaged kids:
"The additional funds for serving schools with high concentrations of disadvantaged students will make it possible for those schools to stay open from early in the morning until late at night, offering a wide range of supportive services to the students and their families. They will have the funds needed to screen and diagnose their students.... ...and the state Teacher Development Agencies will be charged with making a special effort to recruit first-rate teachers for our minority children who look like them and can connect with these children."
The report previously implied that minority teachers were inferior. Now we will assign these "first-rate" teachers to minority kids. And what about the option of private education? It looks like that will be abolished at the first opportunity:
"A system that pursues the wrong goals more efficiently is not a system this country needs. ...No organization could operate a school that was not affiliated with a helping organization of the state, unless the school was itself such an organization."
This report also proposes that the State invest in high-quality education for three and four year olds. Let's get these kids away from from the influence of their parents at the earliest possible time.
Whenever we hear the words "educational reform," this is what the educators are talking about. It is reform that envisions a peaceful overthrow of our present way of life by educational means, in favor of a Marxist regime run by the ruling elite--the high priests of education. Education today is all about training the workforce that will serve the elite of tomorrow.
 Education in the USA February 13, 2008
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
One of the best, if not the best book I have seen on the state of education in the USA. It should be a wake-up call to educators and parents, grandparents, and anyone who is interested in the continued growth of our country. Clear, concise, and well written by well respected people in the field of education and commerce. If you want to know the real reason the job market is in such a state, and where our schools are headed, read this. I do research on these issues and this is the best so far.
Releiance on Objective Tests February 20, 2007
This is an interesting and important document from a group who have had considerable influence on education policy. My largest disagreement is the emphasis on external testing rather than classroom assessment. Good art and music teachers both teach and assess creativty. There is no external test for this ability; whose importance is emphasized in the report.
A well-written wake-up call. February 4, 2007
8 out of 8 found this review helpful
This book by the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce is well written in clear terms with summaries and simple graphics. It is a must read for anyone interested in the future of the US economy. The Commission points out the risks of our poor pre-university education to the US economy. India and China are now competing with the US in the high skilled labor market (not just low skilled) and at lower wages. With the Internet, many jobs can be done anywhere, and companies will hire the best at the lowest cost (Indian engineers make $7500 annually with the same qualifications as US engineers who make $45,000).
The Commission describes how US universities continue to be the best in the world, but grade schools and high schools have fallen behind. In the 20th century the US pioneered universal education, and received an influx of talent, from scientists fleeing Germany before World War II to a more recent influx of Asian students, who stayed and worked here. But now, other countries have passed us in pre-university education and many foreign students are going back to their own countries after graduating.
"A Nation at Risk" came out in 1983, saying "If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre education performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war." The Tough Choices Commission points out that since then we've had a more than doubling of spending on education (inflation adjusted) with only modest improvement. The Commission concludes that the main improvement, standards testing, turns out to be misguided because it is multiple choice, not essay, and thus doesn't teach the creative, out of the box thinking needed for the US to maintain its lead. Multiple choice tests are by definition "in the box" tests.
"A Nation at Risk" proposals in 1983 for merit pay for teachers were resisted, and teachers continue to come from the bottom 1/3 of University graduates. The Commission proposes merit pay for new teachers, with an opt-in choice for existing teachers, combined with higher salaries made possible by eliminating pensions and using 401Ks instead, like other professions. Other proposals include universal pre-school, school choice with funding following students, less bureaucracy and more independence for individual schools, adult education coordinated with the business community, and inter-city schools and supporting social services being coordinated under one person, such as the mayor. Finally, partial funding can be found by reducing the number of students in the last 2 years of high school by allowing board testing at the 10th grade, with those passing going to community college then a university, directly to trade school, or directly to work.
I have separately read that having funding follow the student to encourage competition among schools has been implemented successfully at the city level in San Francisco. The Commission shows that if pensions and vacation time are included, current teacher salaries are actually somewhat competitive. But talented young people prefer money now, and don't know that they would stay in teaching long enough to earn a pension. Thus, pension money could be moved to up front salary and portable 401Ks, with existing teachers having the option of opting in or staying with their pensions.
The proposal to coordinate social services with schooling to help the disadvantaged, such as by putting all under a mayor has been done in New York recently, with great success. By providing programs for kids until 5 PM, and help to their families, the disadvantages of a poor home situation can be addressed. The US economy is healthy because of the waves of immigration it has had over the past 15 years, and we can't afford not to train those immigrants so our business have a talented labor pool to draw on.
The board exams proposed at the end of the 10th grade will provide badly needed motivation to students, since they can get out of school earlier if they work harder, rather than marking time.
To cut bureaucracy, the commission proposed principals be given free reign on how to spend the money they get (which is based on the number of students). Also, school boards would not run schools, but would contract with others (such as private companies, groups of teachers, etc.). The school boards would then become performance contract managers.
Finally, the report proposes training of people in the workforce, since these people will be the largest part of our workforce for some time, and will need more advanced and creative skills.
Finally, a comprehensive strategy forward February 2, 2007
4 out of 4 found this review helpful
Citing Winston Churchill, who said America always did the right thing after it had exhausted all the alternatives, the New Commission on Skills of the American Workforce calls for a complete overhaul of American education.
Unlike the Commission Report in 1990, which recommended that we improve our high technology skills and accept as inevitable the movement of low-skill jobs to global competitors, the current Commission draws our attention to the fact that we are losing high-skill jobs to global competitors as well. Such losses are projected to grow geometrically if we fail to act with an integrated whole system response.
The Commission recommends a major overhaul of American education to include how we define needs, develop curriculum, attract and retain world class teachers, focus scarce resources, assess stakeholders, and finance public education. All familiar words, I know, but the devil or angel, if you will, is in the details. Let's look at some of the most important.
Noting the poor scores made by U.S. students on international tests and the prospect that we will lose our leadership position in fields that require exemplary abilities in mathematical reasoning; scientific concepts; writing; creativity and innovation; self-discipline and organization; and teamwork, the Commission calls for regional economic development authorities. These authorities would be responsible for coordinating with existing institutions to develop goals and strategies that would serve as guides for local decisions and channel resources where initiatives contributed to the achievement of such goals and strategies.
The Commission calls for significant changes in school governance. School boards and districts would find their role focused on policy making, facilitation of educational networks, operation of support service centers, reporting, and writing performance contracts with those who operate the schools. Schools would be operated by independent contractors and would have complete discretion to determine spending, staffing, calendar, organization and management ---- all subject to the same safety, curriculum, and testing standards as other schools. States would recruit and train teachers; build standard curriculum and assessment agencies; investigate, review and approve networks; contract for special services; and develop statewide schools to serve gifted children.
Teachers would be employed and licensed by the state. Their compensation would shift from current practices, which are back-loaded to emphasize pensions and defined health care benefits, to one which is front-loaded to emphasize cash compensation. Under a front-loaded approach, pay for beginning teachers would be $45,000. Competent academic-year teachers could receive $95,000 and competent calendar-year teachers as high as $110,000. In addition, incentive pay would be paid to teachers willing to teach in remote areas, tough urban areas, and in fields with labor shortages like math, science, language, and special education. The objective of all these changes is to recruit, develop, and retain individuals who had graduated from the top third of their high school graduation classes.
To discover where much of the money is coming from to pay for these changes, you have to examine their recommendation in the area of assessment. Essentially, the Commission wants to shift American education from a system that is time-based to one that is based on merit, using Board Examinations to control progression. They would allow high school students to sit for the initial board examinations at the end of their sophomore year. If they score well enough, they will be allowed to begin a two-year technical training program or to enter a four-year degree program. Those who scored less well would remain to prepare for the second board examination which, when passed, would allow them to attend a state college or university. Neither progression would permit remediation at the next highest level. In short, no one would be allowed to progress unless they are ready and no one would be held back based on a scheme that honors time more than it does competence. The Commission expects this progression scheme to save $67 billion.
In addition to teacher compensation, the Commission would spend part of the savings on high-quality, universal early childhood education for three and four year olds. Supplemental funding would be made available to help schools with high concentrations of disadvantaged students, e.g. screening and diagnosis, tutoring; community involvement, etc. School financing would be a state, rather than a local matter. And the state would use a uniform funding formula that emphasizes equity over equality. New Federal money would be sought to fund interest-bearing Personal Competitiveness Accounts. These accounts would be funded by the Federal government with a $500 deposit at birth and annual contributions made to age 16. The fund would accept tax-free contributions from employers, states, and individuals. From these funds, individuals could draw to improve their education and skills as adults.
Reactions from the educational establishment have been mixed. Predictably, all favor high-quality universal education for three and four year olds and for injections of more money into the educational system. No one, however, wants to support recommendations that would require substantial changes for their membership. The National Education Association (NEA) doesn't want to support the shift in compensation because their current membership favors back-loaded systems. Neither the NEA nor the National School Boards Association wants to give up local funding and operation of schools. Finally, the National Association for College Admission Counseling cautions against using Board Examinations if they are built on the foundation of European models.
All stakeholders need to realize that the situation has deteriorated to such a point that anything less than a major transformation of American education risks being characterized as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. As the Commission emphasizes, this is not a set of recommendations to be cherry-picked. Instead, they require a thoughtful, soul searching reflection and authentic dialogue to meet the challenges that are quickly coming into view.
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
