I agree with the statement of the problem – I am confused by the recommended solutions

Shortly before holiday break, I commented on the Dec. 18 issue of Time that considered “How to Build a Student for the 21st Century”. A major source within Time’s coverage was “Tough Choices or Tough Times” – The Report of the Commission of Skills of the American WorkForce (executive summary). I am guessing this report will generate a lot of interest among business leaders and politicians. I purchased the full report and have now read it. I agree with the statement of the problem and I think I understand the basics of the proposed plan of action. My reaction, possibly because I am a member of “the establishment” (translate older and a career educator), is that the plan is naive and based on too many untested assumptions. The plan tends to get vague just where I want details. Rather than launch into a long description, what follows is my interpretation of key points. I encourge those interested in educational policy to read the full report.

The book outlines a growing economic challenge to the US as a consequence of outsourcing – low end or routinized jobs to countries with a cheap labor force or to technology and an increasing number of high end jobs to skilled professionals from other countries who are willing to work for much lower salaries that their US counterparts. The analysis seems very similar to that provided in Friedman’s The World is Flat.

High wages and corporate growth will depend on continuing innovation. It seems our educational system is not producing enough graduates with the knowledge (translate math and science although other content areas are mentioned) and creativity to compete. This is a threat to the future standard of living of many individuals and the general economy of the country.

The solution:

Create an educational system that meets or exceeds the accomplishments of the competition.

a) Assume that students will be ready for college when they are 16 (as I understand the model) because this is what must be regarded as the standard set by “the competition.”

b) Create two levels of examinations (one for what is now the sophomore year and one for what is now the senior year). The first is intended to determine mastery of knowledge and skills roughly equivalent to what we now regard as the traditional high school education. Passing this exam would allow entry into community college or trade schools. Passing the exam would also allow continuation in an advance high school curriculum equivalent to AP coursework.

c) Create a more productive system to meet these expectations.

1) Hire teachers from the top 1/3 rather than the bottom 1/3 of college students.

2) Improve early childhood education

3) Commit more resources to disadvantaged students.

While this system will cost more money, the Commission argues that there is efficiency in doing the job right the first time (moving students on to postsecondary education more quickly, reducing grade repeaters, reducing need for remedial programs).

Proposals likely to be controversial:

a) create a different model for paying teachers that allows a higher entering salary and then increases more dependent on productivity (student performance) than years of service

b) greater authority at the state level – e.g., teachers employed by the state – salary schedule would allow encouragement to work in high need areas

c) performance based system like NCLB but with an emphasis on the progress of all students rather than number of students meeting minimum standards – parents free to move students, more competition among schools, greater freedom for entities to form schools and compete for students

While the economic challenges do seem real, the assumed responsibility of the educational system for economic productivity, the focus on presently available examinations as indicators of the productivity of teachers and schools, and the validity of international comparisons of student achievement have been contested.

For example:

William’s Spady’s Paradigm Trap challenges the assumed consequences of test-based accountability systems (in reference to NCLB).

Critics of the law also can point to frightening evidence about the effects on schools and students of mandated testing-and-accountability programs that had emerged before the law was officially enacted and has been borne out since. These include lower educator motivation and morale; the loss in droves of talented and creative educators who retire or leave the system; a severe narrowing of curriculum offerings;major increases in student stress, dysfunctional behavior, failure rates, and dropout rates; and the wholesale suppression of nontraditional educational approaches.

Some years ago, Berliner and Biddle wrote a book entitled “The Manufactured Crisis” that offered me some reassurance that the US K-12 student was not the international laggard that some politicians and business leaders had contended (an online summary of some key points if you are interested). The date of this analysis is an issue (mid-1990s),

I am sure the debate is just beginning.

– – – –

Here is a follow-up to this post. I now see that Colorado is seriously considering pursuing the proposals of this commission.

Blogged with Flock