National Center on Education and the Economy. (2007). Tough Choices or Tough Times: The Report of the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. Reviewed by Chad R. Lochmiller, University of Washington

National Center on Education and the Economy. (2007). Tough Choices or Tough Times: The Report of the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pp. 169         ISBN 0-7879-9598-3 Reviewed by Chad R. Lochmiller University of Washington July 22, 2007 The Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, under the Chairmanship of Charles B. Knapp, prepared its report under the auspices of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). Throughout the report, issued in Decemebr 2006, the authors argue for fundamental changes to the education system. Stating that piecemeal reforms will no longer work, the report takes aim at many of the canons that have come to define public education (NCEE, 2007, pg. xix). For example, the report argues for dramatically changing the way teachers are hired and compensated. It argues for rethinking the current allocation of resources. Finally, it imaginatively proposes adult education programs that could potentially interface with the nation’s community colleges. In this review, I briefly summarize the major points of the report and conclude by offering my commendations and suggestions for improvement. The review proceeds with a discussion of the challenges identified by the commission. Summary of Challenges Opening with a discussion of our current recruiting practices for classroom teachers, the report takes aim at the heart and soul of public education – teachers who work daily and directly with students. According to the authors, our current approach to teacher recruitment favors high school students that are less able and consequently poorly equipped to meet the rigors of future educational needs. Noting the country will need approximately 15 percent of the workforce to serve as teachers in order to meet future demand for education the authors assert that a new recruiting strategy is needed and that this strategy ought to be part of comprehensive education reform (pg. 127). While careful to recognize that “teaching in the United States has [long] stood between professional and blue-collar occupations” (pg. 128), the authors assert that our current recruiting practices must be examined if we are to attract higher quality teacher candidates from among the current ranks of high school students and ultimately improve student learning outcomes. In addition to reforming the current recruiting system, the commission argues that we “tolerate an enormous amount of waste in the [education] system” (pg. xx). This waste reflects the system’s tendency to defer academic intervention and support until late in a student’s school career. This deferment results in interventions that the authors suggest are more costly. We are “failing our students in the early years,” they say, “when the cost of doing the job right would be relatively low and trying to remediate it later at much higher cost” (pg. xx). Citing the $2.7 billion that the United States spends on post-secondary recommendation, the message that more must be done to address challenges earlier in a student’s career is stated loud and clear. Building on the inadequacies of our current interventions, the authors take issue with the perceived disconnect between investments in public education and the outcomes derived as a result of these investments. Citing student performance on standardized measures (e.g., 4th grade NAEP reading scores) relative to the increasing amount of money spent education; the authors hypothesize that the current funding and accountability system may be tolerating an inefficient use of resources. Interestingly, the authors point out that the current investment made in public education has been increasing over the last 30 years but that the performance of students is not keeping pace (pg. xxi). Further, the report details the growing disparity in family incomes and the inequitable distribution of intellectual capital among students entering the education system. This disparity has been referred to as “a source of avoidable injustice” elsewhere (Hirsch, 1996, pg. 20). In practice, it reveals that “education is an institution whose basic problems are caused by, and whose basic problems reveal, the other crises in cities: poverty, joblessness and low-wages, and racial and class segregation” (Anyon, 2005, pg. 177). To address this disparity, the authors argue for greater attention and investment in adult education as well as a greater effort to motivate students to take rigorous courses (NCEE, 2007, pg. xx). Staking their claims on the competitiveness of the American economy, the authors assert that the growing disparity will undermine our competitiveness in the global economy if it goes unaddressed. “In a few decades, the U.S. share of the global college-educated workforce has fallen from 30 percent to 14 percent, notwithstanding a very large increase during the same period in the fraction of Americans entering college” (pg. 16). In stark terms, the authors state, “to the extent that our skills are the foundation of our economic dominance, that foundation is eroding in front of our eyes” (pg. 16). In part, the report connects declining competitiveness among American workers to our national obsession with testing schemes that favor basic skills and wrote memorization. These schemes do not test for understanding. Instead, these seek to measure how much of information presented students retain. While there are exceptions to this system, a number of the current testing system measure student’s understanding of routine, standardized concepts instead of the students’ comprehension or understanding of complicated problems (NCEE, 2007, pg. xxv). In effect, the report argues that we are testing ourselves out of competition with our global peers. The bottom line is that the system we create must ensure that American students are prepared for the 21st century workforce and that they possess the creativity and innovation, faculty with the use of ideas and abstractions, the self-discipline and organization needed to ensure their success in a more competitive environment (pg. xxv). The authors further argue that greater attention must be paid to the compensation, benefits, and incentive structure created for classroom teachers. The current compensation system creates incentives to stay in the profession but provides little incentive to highly qualified individuals to enter the profession in the first place. Taking aim at the longstanding emphasis on the “single salary schedule” or compensation based on “education and experience” (NCEE, 2007, pg. 102), the authors assert that new compensation practices must be implemented and we must stop relying on “poor proxies” for teacher quality (Plecki, 2000) instead of the more salient measure – student-learning outcomes. Building on their belief that structural change is necessary, the authors argue that the bureaucracy that we have constructed to manage public education disconnects those who make decisions from those held accountable for the decisions made. In other words, we must create systems that serve schools instead asking schools to serve bureaucracies. Contrasting education to business, the authors state that education bureaucracy continues to favor structures where mechanical efficiency takes precedence over employing “high-performance management models designed to produce high-quality products and services with highly educated workers” (NCEE, 2007, pg. xxvi). One by-product of the current bureaucracy is our “elaborate funding mechanism to provide funds to send young people to college and university to launch in their careers of their choice… [yet it does] a very poor job of making it possible for adults who have full-time jobs and family responsibilities to get continuing education and training” (NCEE, 2007, pgs. xix-xxi). This, the authors suggest is both a break down in the funding structures for public education as well as a reflection how unaligned different levels of the education system are (Kirst & Venezia, 2002; Venezia, Kirst, & Antonio, 2003). Finally, the report that the existing system does too little to interface with the workforce as it currently exists and makes no room for those currently in the workforce who need additional training. The commissioners find that “most of the people we will have in our workforce in 20 years are in the workforce now” (NCEE, 2007, pg. xxix). This means that individuals who are currently employed have no access to additional training. At the same time, “U.S. adults with a high school diploma but no college ranked dead last among their peers from 19 developed countries in terms of their literacy proficiency” (pg. 139). To address this issue, the commissioners assert that the United States must address investments in the education of adults – currently these investments are “sorely inadequate” (pg. 140). Summary of Recommendations In light of these challenges, the commission offers five primary recommendations. Each recommendation addresses some aspect of the system that the report concludes is an impediment to student achievement and toward increased national competitiveness. Briefly, the five recommendations include: redesigning the current compensation and retirement system for classroom teachers; investing strategically in early learning services for 3- and 4-year-olds; providing assistance for students who are struggling; eliminating public investment in post-secondary remediation; and strategically reorganizing the delivery of education, particularly at the high school level (NCEE, 2007, pg. 99). In addition, the commission also suggests that a new system of standards and assessments be developed, which they refer to as “Board Exams” (pg. xxi), and that personal competitiveness accounts and regional competitiveness authorities be created to enhance opportunity for continuing education and adult learning (pg. xxx). While the latter of these recommendations are interesting propositions, I have constrained my discussion only to those most applicable and salient to current policy debates. These, I believe, must be tackled in the immediate future. Moreover, without these reforms, the other proposals offered by the authors seem impossible. Changing Teacher Compensation and Retirement Benefits. The authors propose two significant reforms in the area of teacher compensation. First, they call for the creation of a “career ladder” form of compensation that is modeled after Denver Public Schools’ ProComp system. Under this system teachers are not compensated based on their years of service but rather for demonstrated student growth on standardized tests and teacher-designated measures. Further, teachers are compensated for the knowledge and skills they acquire and are rewarded for positive performance evaluations every three years. Finally, the system provides incentives for talented and accomplished teachers to work in high needs schools (pgs. 131-132). Performance based compensation systems have been implemented in many states, including Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina and Texas (Podgursky & Springer, 2006). Such systems appear to benefit teachers and principals, and may indirectly improve student learning. The authors also suggest changing the long-term benefit structure for teachers. “Specifically, [they] propose converting teachers’ pension plans from the typically defined benefit plan to either a defined contribution plan or a cash balance plan” (NCEE, 2007, pg. 130). These recommendations could potentially free approximately $6.6 bullion in funds for the additional expenditures created by the propose career ladder (pg. 131). Invest in Early Learning. Echoing the National Education Goals of 1990, the authors call for a significant investment in early learning programs for 3- and 4-year-olds (NCEE, 2007, pg. 108). Suggesting that $19 billion be added to the nation’s current investment in early childhood education, the report argues that the purpose of this investment ought to be to create high quality programs capable of offering every 3- or 4-year-old child three hours per day of organized instruction. According to the authors, “the problem with American early childhood education… is as much the lack of robust infrastructure as it is the lack of quality of programs” (pg. 138). The author’s address this weakness by targeting investments into successful program models, establishing higher performance and service delivery standards, and ultimately expanding access to these programs. Provide Support to Struggling Students. In addition to providing support to 3- and 4-year old children through early learning programs, the authors advocate for “strategic investment in students who are not successful in school” (pg. 99). To that end, the report suggests: increasing access to screening services for at-risk students, increasing the provision of remedial support (e.g., tutoring, double-period classes, etc.); expanding after-school or extended-day programming and mentoring; establishing connections between health, judicial, and social services in public schools; and creating residential schools for those students whose home or personal circumstances warrant this kind of support. Interestingly, the report suggests that the cost of these services can be funded from savings obtain by retooling existing programs. The cost will be nearly $20 billion (pg. 116). Eliminate Public Funding for Postsecondary Remediation. The report argues that their recommendations for public education will reduce, or eliminate, the need for postsecondary remediation. They find that it currently costs the United States approximately $2.7 billion to provide postsecondary remedial services, divided by the number of students currently in remedial courses costs an average of $412 per student (pg. 118). All total, the United States spends approximately $267 billion for postsecondary education, including community colleges. Reorganize the delivery of education, especially at the high school level. At the core of the recommendations presented lies in the author’s vision for a reformed organizational, financial, and government arrangement for schools. In many ways, the recommendations proposed in this report imbue the kinds of reforms New York City is currently pursuing with the creation of Empowerment Schools and Empowerment School Networks. In essence, the authors propose transferring authority to the school level, empowering school principals as leaders, and routing the district (central administration) functions in ways that support schools directly. Under the proposed system, schools will have budgetary authority, be contractually bound to the “district,” and the district itself would be primarily responsible competing with other “contractors” to provide supports and services to the schools. The schools are held accountable for their performance; however, school principals and his/her staff hold decision making authority in areas that were previously reserved for the central office or central administration (pgs. 68-78). Commendations and Criticisms The recommendations offered by The New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce have many implications for policy and practice. The authors’ vision for public education is bold, indeed. If nothing more, this report ought to serve as a catalyst for discussions about the important challenges facing education. Namely, whose interests are we serving and for what purpose are those interests being served? While the report’s recommendations are commendable, I worry that the recommendations proposed demonstrate so much creativity that it left little room for substance. The proposals themselves seem bold to the point of being politically unfeasible. Further, the recommendations fail to address one of the most important aspects of any report of this kind – namely, addressing how the recommendations will support, guide, and inform the current practices in the system as well as the teachers, principals, and other staff who are currently employed. It appears – at least from my vantage point – that the recommendations tend to focus on the structure of the education system while omitting the people currently employed by it. If there is one point that deserves careful consideration from practitioners, policy-makers, and scholars it is the discussion of alternative hiring, recruiting, compensation practices for classroom teachers. As previously stated, classroom teachers work at the core of our education system and thus any set of recommendations or proposals that is worthy of consideration must make explicit the kinds of changes that will be made to support or reward these vital organizational stakeholders. For example, this report suggests that existing systems for teacher compensation, teacher training, and the employment practices of states warrant reconsideration. Though the discussion is grounded in a relevant example, namely the City of Denver’s ProComp system (NCEE, 2007, pgs. 131-132) it would have been helpful if the author’s would have instead discussed a state level compensation system, such as the one currently in place in North Carolina system (see Ladd, 2004 for a discussion of this system and its approach). Without this discussion it was very difficult to understand and imagine how teacher compensation might evolve or change as a result of the recommendations. I also worry that the commissioners focus almost entirely on classroom teachers without making any reference to principals or assistant principals – except that they will be given greater authority and responsibility. As we know from a growing body of research, however, principals do influence student learning (Cotton, 2003; Leithwood, et al., 2004; Marzano, et al., 2006). Without providing supports to those who lead the system from titular roles, it seems difficult to imagine let alone believe that these reforms will ever become more than an articulate image of possibility. Overall, this report deserves a careful and critical read. I find that the author’s recommendations are innovative and an excellent starting point for states, districts, and schools to begin the challenging task of discussing how the needs of all students can be met. If there is any advice I can offer to future readers, it would be to read this report with an open mind. While the recommendations may seem radical, they triggered my own deep thinking about the role and place that schools have in preparing our students for success in a rapidly challenging global economy. Clearly, we have much to gain from improving our system of public education – this, I think, Tough Choices or Tough Times makes quite clear. References Anyon, J. (2005). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social movement. New York: Routledge. Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Hirsch, E. D. (1996). The schools we need and why we don’t have them. New York: Anchor Books. Kirst, M. W., & Venezia, A. (Ed.). (2004). From high school to collee: Improving opportunities for success in postsecondary education. San Franciso: Jossey Bass. Plecki, M. L. (2000). Economic perspectives on investments in teacher quality: Lessons learned from research on productivity and human resource development. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(33). Marzano, R.J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Podgursky, M. J., & Springer, M. G., (2006). Teacher performance pay: A review. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, National Center on Performance Incentives. About the Reviewer Chad R. Lochmiller is a Doctoral Student at the University of Washington (Seattle) in Educational Leadership & Policy Studies.