The+21st+Century+Workplace+and+the+Implications+for+Education

Consider the //Tough Choices Tough Times// reading in relation to the //2020 Forecast// as well as the general conversations we have engaged in around innovation and creativity in educational programming. How can (or should) **K-16 education react to the ideas and trends suggested in these documents around the creation of a workforce “in which creativity and innovation are the key to the good life, in which high levels of education – a very different kind of education than most of us have had – are going to be the only security there is”? We would like to explore this idea in relation to the current trends in educational reform as dictated by the four main components of **Race to the Top**: · Standards and Assessments · Data Systems to Support Instruction · Great Teachers and Leaders · Turning Around Lowest Achieving Schools Please respond to the following questions: ** 1. Do you agree in the need to move in this direction? If so, how will current trends in federal and state policy support that change? 2. If you disagree in the need to move in that direction, what alternatives would you provide for educational policy and decision makers to consider?
 * 
 * 

The article “Tough Choices or Tough Times” restates succinctly and completely everything I have been saying to our staff, parents, students, business and community leaders, and anyone who will listen or takes an interest in educational reform. We cannot afford NOT to do something drastically different than what we have been doing. Our high school is currently in the process of revising our mission and vision with the combined efforts of all the stakeholders. It is exactly the skills that this article refers to that the members of our group who are in the business and community are saying our work force is currently lacking. They are imploring the schools to create workers who have the 21st century skills. Ironically, these skills are not new. They are the skills that all the great successful people of history have possessed. What is new is that every worker now needs them. It is no longer just reserved for those who will make it and the rest of us will ride on their coattails as in the past. The changes must start at the federal level, work with state and local Boards of Education to “get on the same page”. I like the idea of consistency across states. I would welcome standards, curricula, and assessments that are uniform across the country. We all need to agree on what’s important, because I agree that what’s assessed is what is taught. The key to all of this is great teachers and great administrators. We absolutely need to recruit and retain the best. Funding must assure that we can do this. I am not so confident that linking student achievement to teacher/administrator evaluation is the answer. It implies that we have not been concerned with student achievement. I would rather see as the article implies, a better system of compensation that would ensure we attract the best and the brightest into education. While the RTTT goals are similar, I am concerned that the means to the ends are not always justified. Whenever money is attached to mandates, I am not so sure the mandates are followed because they are believed to be the soundest policies. This article articulated a comprehensive approach to changing education as it has been for centuries. It implied that we cannot fix what we currently have but must dismantle and begin anew. It goes without saying that this problem is greater than the K-12 system. It begins with a system that responds to the needs of our preschoolers and affords opportunities through post-secondary years. Our colleges and universities must respond by counseling the best and brightest into the educational field and counseling out those that do not deserve the privilege of educating our future. Passing courses should not be the only indication of a great teacher. Teacher preparation programs must provide many hours of practicum and observation as well as a longer intern or student teaching experience. We can learn a lesson from the medical profession. Doctors intern for several years under the tutelage of many mentors before they are allowed to work on their own. Would you consider having surgery by someone who watched the procedure done before or only had 8 weeks of practice? Yet this is who is allowed to teach our children. The U.S. cannot afford to outsource our country. To remain competitive, we must rely on a highly intelligent work force with a command of the 21st century skills. (Jan Saam)


 * //Tough Choices or Tough Times// was incredibly enlightening and exciting. I feel the Commission is on the correct path to improving education in our nation and that moving in this direction is essential. However, I do not necessarily agree that we take every step the new Commission is proposing in order to improve our workforce and educational system. **


 * It is critical that the United States do something to mend our failing educational system and act quickly to recruit and hire high quality people to educate our youth. The reality of the fact that we place the least effective teachers to work with our most disadvantaged students is devastating. Although working with a more challenging population can be more rewarding; it can also be very stressful because of all the federal and state mandates and obvious obstacles. I am in full support of changing the shape of teacher compensation and placing the best teachers in the schools that need them the most. We must work harder to recruit first-rate teachers for our minority students who can connect and relate to them. Financial incentives for teachers to work with our disadvantaged students in more difficult neighborhoods must be provided in order to make these teacher assignments be more attractive. **


 * Most importantly, I agree with a major overhaul of the American testing industry. Teachers are finally beginning to use the standards when designing their lessons, but we are still a long way from doing this well across the nation. **


 * The educational system in our nation must produce a better workforce. It is encouraging that the Commission wants the federal government to pass legislation which will entitle every adult and young adult worker to an education at no charge. If we want our workforce to be creative and innovative thinkers, workers must be highly educated. It is very concerning that the economic analysis completed suggests that the next few decades will be a time of increasing turbulence in the job market because outsourcing will increase, among many other factors. **

In principle I agree with most of the recommendations in the report. However, I disagree with some methodology in moving our system forward. For example, the opening paragraphs describe a global shift in low skill manufacturing jobs. Most informed citizens recognize that this shift has been happening for years. However, I believe our education system is not evolving with this shift because of labor unions, American societal norms and a perception that success is attained without sacrifice and service. A case can be made that “big labor” reacts immediately with any notion of exporting low skill manufacturing jobs to areas with low operating costs. The shift of low skill labor has been the result of private businesses making these changes for financial reasons. Meanwhile, as this shift has been happening, the government has not viewed this shift as a call to arms to systemically revamp education. Although this report is a step in the right direction, I wonder if any policy makers have read it. Also, Senator Tom Gaffe said, “CT has had negative job growth over the last 20 years.” How many of these job losses are the results of a Pratt and Whitney or United Technologies plant moving out of state due to high operating costs, which could be the result of CT’s high cost of living? Our education system should’ve changed along with the economy shift. I do feel that a total shift of manufacturing is inherently bad for our position as a world power. If we lose our manufacturing base, we may become too dependent on various Asian nations, where nearly everything is produced. While China has a significant manufacturing sector, its education system is also booming with a heavy influence on learning English. My high school’s partnership with a Chinese sister school is one perfect example. Although China’s gov’t is clearly an oppressive Communist regime, I think we’re headed for the #2 spot in the world if we don’t get serious about education. As for the individual recommendations in the report, there are important characteristics that require further examination. I had the opportunity to read this report when it was first published in 2007. As a whole, I think that there is a slight elitist approach in forcing students onto a certain path. For example, page 10 of the report references “board exams” as a means to determine future education. Does this mean that students will never be permitted to expand their opportunities because they may have done poorly on a test? There are plenty of non-traditional college grad’s that would disagree with this recommendation. A college friend of mine became a plumber out of high school, but later whet to college and is now a “hedge fund” manager making well over a six figure income. Also, how will teachers unions react to these proposals and to what degree will we hold teachers accountable when American students continue to fall behind the rest of the industrialized world? Just recently there were emergency meetings by state union leaders all focused on RTTT. I would also like to see the data used to support that the teachers who finished in the bottom third of their high school classes make bad teachers. Also, who will set “national standards?” For example, setting national standards in a content area like “U.S. History” could take years. Additionally, why move to universal pre-school when there is no mandate for all-day kindergarten? Overall I think the report has tremendous merit. I especially that the report was created in a clear bipartisan political effort, which is noted in the contributor listing. However, as a society we need to focus on the variety of external factors that impact a child’s most impressionable years. For example, how many children under the age of six are never read to at night by responsible parents or learn the importance of speaking English, which the report states is crucial? Universal preschool will not solve the societal conditions that are seriously impacting education. I feel the report lacks analysis on how these factors negatively influence education. (Scott Clayton)
 * Overall, I do believe that as a nation we need to head in this direction, but it will not come as a surprise when the federal, state, and local policy makers fight this transformation. It is my feeling that local school boards and state boards will create many roadblocks along the way. They will not want to give their power to independent contractors for political reasons. Although I completely agree that schools should be directly funded by the state, according to a prescribed formula regarding pupil-weighting, and funds should be spent as needed by the school; I can’t imagine this happening in Connecticut anytime soon. Although I foresee some obstacles and a bumpy road, I look forward to being part of this exiting change in education over the next few decades. (Enza Macri) **

I think everyone can agree that educational reform is necessary. The big question is, “What current policies and practices are working, and what needs to change?” The Race to the Top (RTTT) initiative is supporting reform with a focus on four main areas: Standards and Assessments, Data Systems to Support Instruction, Great Teachers and Leaders, and Turning around Lowest Achieving Schools. Some of the steps put forth in the executive summary of the “Tough Choices //OR// Tough Times” (TCOTT) report align with the RTTT initiative; however, the report includes areas outside the scope of RTTT and proposes a much more comprehensive approach to educational reform. Finally, the provisional assumptions, ideas and trends for each of the Drivers of Change in the “2020 Forecast: Creating the Future of Learning” document support the TCOTT suggestion that “candidates will have to be comfortable with ideas and abstractions, good at both analysis and synthesis, creative and innovative, self-disciplined and well organized, able to learn very quickly and work well as a member of a team and have the flexibility to adapt quickly to frequent changes in the labor market as the shifts in the economy become ever faster and more dramatic.”

Since the four main components of RTTT are the focus at the federal level, I will begin there. The “Standards and Assessments” and “Data Systems to Support Instruction” components relate to Step 4 of TCOTT. There is a need to design our state standards, assessments and curriculum with “today’s needs and tomorrow’s requirements” (see above) in mind. Careful consideration should be given to what skills are being taught and assessed and what our curriculum should look like. As a member of the Connecticut State Department of Education’s (CSDE) curriculum task force for secondary school reform, I understand some of the challenges that will occur, such as designing curriculum that meets the needs of today’s students, while still fulfilling the transcript requirements of institutions of higher education. Also, it is very interesting that the idea of using data to track student progress and design instruction is a fairly new practice in general education, as this has been the standard in special education for years. The use of longitudinal data systems will be essential for educational reform. Teachers, students, parents and administrators need to clearly see student growth and mastery of skills in order to design, participate in and support a rigorous and effective education. Moreover, these data systems are needed to support districts as they implement Connecticut’s Strategic Research-Based Intervention (SRBI) framework.

Next, RTTT’s “Great Teachers and Leaders” aligns with Steps 2 and 3 of TCOTT. Recruiting qualified teachers, who will in turn become effective leaders, is critical to successful school reform. Rethinking how we can best use our limited resources may be able to assist with this challenge. My concern with this approach is that “throwing money” at a problem seldom has sustained benefit. Paying teachers a higher salary does not in and of itself guarantee that you will have better teachers. In fact, I would argue that a “bottom third” teacher who is creative, innovative and passionate about the subject (and learning in general) would be more desirable that a “top third” teacher, who may have strong content knowledge, but lacks all of the other intangible qualities that make a great teacher. This is why it is so important that while we offer more of an incentive to recruit from the top, we also work with our teacher preparation programs in order to ensure that the course of study and criteria for selecting candidates for admission match our current and future needs.

The fourth tenet of RTTT, Turning around Lowest Achieving Schools, may be the most important and the most challenging of all. TCOTT’s Steps 2 and 7 address this issue. It is unfair to expect students living in the most challenging conditions to perform at the same level as those who live in relative ease and comfort, unless they have the appropriate supports in place. Bringing resources to the nation’s disadvantaged students and providing additional supports outside what is traditionally provided at school will make a great difference in not only how students perform academically, but how the students (and families) view the school as a part of the community. The 2020 Forecast’s Driver of Change “Altered Bodies” outlines how “bio-distress” will potentially affect education. I predict that we will see the first affects of this with our urban population of students, many of whom are already considered academically disadvantaged. A “whole child” approach will be necessary if we expect other reform initiatives to work with this population, as many of these students do not have the basic resources and services needed to be fully invested in their education.

Finally, the other steps in “Tough Choice //OR// Tough Times” report all have individual merit. While Step 1 seems like a huge leap and would take a total shift in this nation’s mindset of what secondary education looks like to be successful, Step 6 focuses on something much more accessible – universal early childhood education. Expanding our current thinking to include preschool age children, as well as those on the other end of the spectrum, referenced in Steps 8, 9 and 10, would strengthen the skills of our entire population and workforce. The ideas of giving people already in the workforce an opportunity to return to school to learn the skills needed in the coming years, as well as supporting continuing education with a regional emphasis, will help to ensure that our nation will have “the most competent, most creative, and most innovative people on the face of the earth.” (Mike Tavernier)

“Tough Choices or Tough Times” was very interesting. I certainly agree that we as a nation need to move in this direction in order for our children to meet success in the workforce and in life. Policy changes at the state and national level will be an immerse undertaking that needs to start now with serious discussions between all stakeholders. Our teachers are certainly trying to encourage students to think out of the box and expose them to real-life problems that require them to think creatively. This process is a slow one that requires constant reinforcement from grade to grade and a high level of professional development. Exposing students to problems that require them to think is certainly a start and we have seen success; however we need our district assessments and state tests to be more aligned with this. Since many schools currently teach to the test changing them will help to speed this process. I agree wholeheartedly that recruiting and retaining high quality teachers is key to success. We need to begin with the teacher prep programs to ensure that our future teachers have the best possible training. Training must be federally mandated and uniform from state to state. Student teaching experiences need to be much more extensive with more support and stricter guidelines for cooperating teachers. Continued federally supported professional development for several years before permanent certification is granted is necessary. The effectiveness of Connecticut’s new TEAM program for beginning teachers is yet to be determined but after reviewing it I have concerns. Some of the rationale behind this program was based on economics and that should never be the case. Any legislation our federal government passes that supports change and innovation must have economic support or it is doomed. (Marianne Johnson)

I agree with the overall concepts behind this article. Clearly our graduates need to be creative thinkers who can analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information in the new global economy. Low skill jobs are going to low paying locations. I firmly believe in recruiting and retaining high quality educators and fully support rigorous national standards. Assessments are a key piece of the puzzle and I like the idea of a board test, though I think we need to look at the student in a more broad context than simply one test. I feel that these current trends in federal and state policy support this in developing common standards and attempts to improve instruction and assessment (RTTT). However I take exception to certain aspects of the article, particularly the idea of recruiting teachers from the top third of their high school class. I would like to see the research that led to this recommendation. I do not think this is the issue with bad teaching. For every position I have hired for, I have seen GPAs in the 3.7 and above range. This is not on a few applications, but on a great deal of them. Our problems with instruction are not based in high school class rank any more than they were based on a lack of “focus on content” ten years ago. They are based on a lack of consistency of good, research-based best practices throughout schools. This is at least as much of a leadership (supervision and evaluation) issue as it is a preparation issue. Furthermore, I’m fairly certain we already have a system that requires a bachelor’s degree in the subject to be taught (which would only be applicable to secondary teachers) and a “rigorous teaching assessment.” Teacher preparation should be similar to medical internships. Prospective teachers should spend a year full-time in a school before student teaching. Experience is key as teaching is a complex field. Turning around the lowest performing schools is a key element of the report. The community school trend of innovation in providing “wrap-around services” is a key to leveling an economically disadvantaged playing field. (Jason Daly)

I agree that education in our country needs to be reformed and, in many ways, the Race to the Top (RTTT) initiative proposed by the federal government falls aligns with some of the recommendations outlined in “Tough Choices or Tough Times” (TCTT). However, in some cases the RTTT initiative doesn’t go far enough to achieve some of the key points made in TCTT. In other cases, the RTTT approach seems more practical and achievable whereas the TCTT recommendations are simply unrealistic. For example, the authors of TCTT call for rigorous standards in all subjects, including literature, history, technology and the arts, as well as math and English. However, RTTT doesn’t require anywhere need the level of standards the authors of TCTT recommend. In fact, the Common Core Standards Initiative that RTTT promotes focuses exclusively on math and language arts and a preliminary review of these proposed standards indicates that they are not much higher than the //current// standards in Connecticut. This is likely due to the fact that they were designed for implementation across the country; a country with very different standards in and across states. The authors of TCTT further recommend that teachers be employed by the state and then managed by independent contractors. It does not seem that this proposal would help solve a struggling system and it would likely to lead to even less accountability. In contrast, RTTT is seeking to try and revamp the system from the bottom up, rather than the top down, which makes sense given what we have learned about effective policy change in previous readings. RTTT requires states to provide the necessary //resources//, in the form of technical assistance and professional development, for example, to aid participating districts to reform the way that they evaluate their teachers. In general, it seems that the authors of TCTT have commendable goals for the future of K-16 education in this country. However, many of these goals seem unrealistic as there is no room for buy-in at the ground level. RTTT also has commendable goals that are somewhat in line with the recommendations of TCTT. In some cases though, the goals of RTTT do not go far enough, amounting to a missed opportunity for real reform in this country. (Jen Widness)

​Yes, I agree with the "Tough Choices or Tough Times" article. The article is lofty; but, if the right structure is devised, implemented and monitored, it can be done. Political influence, economics and the "democracy" of America are factors that sometimes prohibit the achievement that we know is needed. With the economic condition of our nation, the time is now to revamp the education system that we have become accustomed.

The most difficult task presented in the article is to convice the top third of high school students going to college to enter the field of education. Many of these students have set their sight on the field of medicine, law or business where compensation is much higher and the autonomy of the working environment is evident and achieveable. Even if higher compensation for education is front loaded, these students may enter; but, I think retention of these students in the field of education may be a struggle. Using programs to highlight education as a career may help to peak the interest of students; thus, gaining a cadre of teachers who would be committed and retained in the field.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act/Stimulus Fund has aligned the money with accountability. Specifically the Race to the Top funding has urged states to competitively be "creative and innovative" in addressing the four major components. The article describes standards and assessments in a tiered system which would provide the roadmap for a student's career path. However, beginning at the end of the tenth grade is similiar to our administration of CAPT. A wondering of the validity of CAPT towards "today's needs and tomorrow's requirements" is present. Are the standards in Connecticut preparing our youth for this? A prevalent difference is that once the CAPT is administered, the conversation ends. Conversation may only be renewed when a student has not met the proficiency standards set for this test. The premise that is set by this article allows the tenth grade assessment to be the beginning of asessments used as a continuum in the education scaffolding of a student.

Connecticut's CALI training has enabled teachers and administrators to become cognizant of the tools that are needed to support instruction. Data systems are the core of this article. All initiatives tied to resources would be substantiated through the data supplied. Targeting those with the highest need is something that is not done; however, new funding would assist in this area of need. The "independent contractors" idea that is discussed is similiar to our concept of Charter Schools or Schools of Choice. The State's direct impact of funding would definitely level the playing field for public education.

Connecticut's "collective bargaining" status will be a struggle to support great teachers and leaders. In my District, the teachers' union refused to sign the initial MOU with the State for the Race to the Top application. The red flag is that some educators view this as a pathway to merit pay. Some educators do not want to have anything to do with the accountability factor. Looking at the person in the mirror can sometimes illustrate deficiencies that are not accepted. Does this really mean that classroom doors are open? The data collection would definitely open doors to marginal instruction impacting the decline of achievement for our students; thus, identifying the urgency for growing a contingency for the 21st century workplace.

America can not continue down the path of "business as usual". Obama's campaign of "Yes, We Can" is woven throughout this Executive Summary with a prescription for success. With the American Recovery Reinvestment Act funding, the foundation is being laid. However, is America ready to step forward and make a "tough choice in tough times"? Will the sustainability be there or is this just a phase associated with this administration? There is a definite need for creativity and innovation in education to progress America's status as a leader in the workplace. (Denise C)

The ideas and practices suggested in the article “Tough Choices or Tough Times” are summarized in two sentences taken from the report, “The core problem is that our education and training systems were built for another era. We can get where we must go only by changing the system itself.” I agree that education needs to move in this direction. The current federal and state trends all point in this direction and this type of systemic change would certainly address the components of Race to the Top. I believe changing our education system to reflect what this report suggests is a way of “leveling” the playing field. This type of education system would give everyone more than one chance and multiple ways (with appropriate resources) to be successful in a very competitive world. “No one would fail. If they did not succeed they would just try again.” This statement refers to Step #1 – “Do the job right the first time.” The graphic organizer on page 11 of the document depicts a plan with a sound educational foundation beginning in pre-school. Options become available to students after they have completed ten years of “Common School”. This system would still allow for many types of professions to be chosen and appears as if it would better prepare our members of society to function.

Two thoughts resonated with me after reading the article. 1) Although I believe this is the direction that our country needs to move in, I’m not sure it will be a popular one. Teachers unions, overpaid members of our society, and some members of the general population will oppose such a change. CHANGE… the operative word – not easily accepted even in small doses. Teachers unions will balk because the proposed system would change the tenure laws, salary schedules, and job expectations of teachers. Overpaid members of our society may not continue to be overpaid. I think an education system like the one proposed would give all people a chance to succeed and not perpetuate the current societal trend which tends to keep money in the pockets of people with money and out of reach for those who are less fortunate. Finally, people believe that they know a lot about education because everyone went to school. If the education system is overhauled, the general population may be uncomfortable because it will no longer be something that they can relate to. My second thought after reading this article was how much this systemic change reminded me of what Community Schools can be for our society. R. Lacobelle

Although I question the specific methods mentioned in Tough Choices Or Tough Times, I agree with the overall theme of moving forward and creative a nation of creative and innovative thinkers. Currently, there are both state and federal policies in place to support the main components of Race to the Top. While the education system in Connecticut is far from perfect, the state has moved forward in assessing schools with the CONNCAN report cards, preparing teachers using TEAM, and supporting teachers and school leaders with CALI. On a national level, Race to the Top funding has created a national competition for creative and innovative educational reform. Teacher and school leader recruiting and retention is the key to transforming all levels of education. While I agree with teacher compensation, I am apprehensive about linking it solely to student achievement. My fear is that struggling students would be placed with inexperienced teachers. It would be difficult to convince tenure, veteran teachers to teach struggling students if the teachers’ pay and evaluation is linked solely to a child’s proficiently. I would hope that moving forward teacher compensation is based on student growth over time, rather than a single test score. Additionally, it is necessary to reform school leadership appointments. School leaders should be hired based on skills and results, rather than years in a school district. As a nation, we cannot continue to wait to create universal access to quality education. Policy makers, stake-holders, and the nation as a whole, needs to be prepared for a massive realistic change in the educational structure in America. (Heather Wachter)

The executive summary entitled Tough Choices or Tough Times (TCOTT), published by the National Center on Education and the Economy is a well researched and thought-out response addressing educational reform in American Schools. This document compliments the Race to the Top competitive grant and the publication of the 2020 Forecast, one being that it offers very clear solutions to improve schools and education, yet not without complexity, controversy and potential trepidation, which will be explained below. Moreover, what this document does is recognize the importance of creativity and innovation and outlines a series of steps to harvest these characteristics within every learner so that all individuals are educated, successful and contributors to the greater community and nation. The advancement of technology is already influencing the ways in which we access and transmit information. The 2020 Forecast projects the shifts in teaching and learning that incorporate emerging ideas and concepts that will shape the future of learning. These shifts also impact accessibility to information, communication, education and employment. This is something that the TCOTT recognizes and values. Within the TCOTT, a series of ten steps are proposed to produce an improved educational structure for our students, our nation and our future. Without careful consideration and implementation, the authors warn there will be irrevocable consequences. They explain, “If we continue on our current course, and the number of nations outpacing us in the education race continues to grow at its current rate, the American standard of living will steadily fall relative to those nations, rich and poor, that are doing a better job. If the gap gets to a certain-but knowable- point, the world’s investors will conclude that they can get a greater return on their funds elsewhere, and it will be almost impossible to reverse course. Although it is possible to construct a scenario for improving our standard of living, the clear and present danger is that it will fall for most Americans.” Therefore, within these ten steps, the TCOTT suggests building a high-quality full service early childhood center for every 3 and 4 year old, followed by a restructuring of the K-12 education-resulting in ten years of Common School followed by opportunities to attend upper secondary academic programs, vocational/community/technical college or other academic programs. It proposes the implementation of internationally benchmarked education standards and the use of Board Examinations to measure student’s mastery of those standards. The TCOTT explains that standards and assessments must be carefully examined and then connected to the right syllabi and instructional materials. Assessments and curriculums must ‘reflect today’s needs and tomorrows requirements.’ Students who score well enough on Board Examinations will be guaranteed the right to go to their community college to begin a program leading to a two year degree or later transfer to a four-year state college. I will pause here to explain my position on the TCOTT’s ideas regarding early childhood education and the restructuring of the educational system. So many communities in our society experience inequality, poverty and lack of access to healthcare, and educational resources. It is pervasive. When a child is born into some form of inequity, there become massive consequences for early childhood development. Basic needs must be met-children must feel safe, connected and loved. They must be physically nourished and cared for. But that is simply not enough. The range of experiences and opportunities provided to infants and young children are crucial. It is necessary that children are exposed and stimulated through social interactions and sensory motor activities that will influence cognitive, physical and emotional development. When schools are connected to community service programs (including healthcare and direct service programs like counseling), we can begin to address issues that will otherwise persist. When children are serviced with early childhood educational opportunities, they develop into content, happy, curious children hungry for knowledge and purpose. For children whose basic needs go unmet or have little to no exposure to language, social, emotional and cognitive development, there is significant catching up to do once they enter school. How pertinent early childhood education is for all students. High quality, affordable programs and health related resources will target our most at risk children and families and put in place interventions and preventative measures. Early diagnosis can lead to immediate correction when the right interventions are utilized. I am disappointed that the TCOTT only offered a brief paragraph within their 20 page summary to address early childhood education, though am glad that it was valuable enough for them to place on their radar. Secondly, I applaud the TCOTT on their proposed reorganization of the educational structure. As an educator, I am a staunch supporter for superior education for all students, regardless of ability, race, socioeconomic status and demographic location. I believe in student, parent, teacher and administrative accountability and commitment towards improvement and success. I believe in the potential for a cradle through college philosophy (ESEA) and, in addition, extending the school year and keeping students focused on their future successes. We need a new system that addresses today’s needs. An extended school year, literacy, developing critical thinking skills and problem solving, differentiated instruction/learning and student/teacher/school accountability are just a few considerations. The TCOTT specifically addresses the benefits of Board Examinations, which are useful when identifying how well students are meeting benchmarked standards and curriculum. I think that they may have both positive and negative consequences. Students who pass their board exams will have the opportunity to go onto community college or enroll in a technical program by the age of 16. For students who fail the exam and are driven, with hard work and perseverance, a second try will be worthwhile in attempt to move onto higher education. My concern is coupled with finances and access to these college programs. Who funds them, especially for families who cannot afford higher education and how do these children access such programs? How involved are the higher education instituations and the LEAs to promote these programs? Additionally, how do we continue to motivate the students who don’t pass after many board examination attempts? Finally, how do we hold students to internationally benchmarked standards when there is such disparity in curriculum in schools and states throughout the nation? Collaboration will be the driving force in the commitment and success of the restructure of the school system and the use of the board examinations. Just recently, I learned that Connecticut is a participating state in Marc Tucker’s Board Examination Pilot. Again, though it entails a complex process, I commend our state for their interest in addressing college/career readiness and preparation as well as providing opportunities to those who are college ready and design more targeted plans for students who need remedial intervention. Another step recommended by the TCOTT involves recruiting, training and deploying a teaching coalition from the nation’s //top third of teachers// in training. According to the TCOTT, schools are recruiting more of our teachers from the bottom third of students in teacher education programs than is wise. Their suggestions target the higher performing cohort of teachers and advise changing teacher salaries/compensations/benefits comparable to those of the better firms in the private sector. I agree that teacher recruitment and training is an essential component to improving the delivery of education. Though not mentioned in the article, institutions of higher education must play an integral role in ensuring that their programs provide the highest levels of training and rigor as well as experiential practices so that teachers are far better prepared for the classroom and meeting the diverse needs of learners and their communities. An additional consideration made by the TCOTT involves changing the governance, finance, organization and managements of schools, giving less control to the Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and more to States-allowing them to handle the school operations and hiring of teachers. They suggest that schools should not be owned by school district, but rather be operated by independent contractors-some of them limited-liability corporations owned and run by teachers. The role of central office in the school district would involve writing performance contracts with the operators of these schools, monitor and evaluate the operations, and replace providers if needed. Data collection and evaluation would be a crucial component of the work conducted in central office as well as connecting programs to services in the community and beyond. Schools would be directly funded by the State and prescribe a pupil-weighting formula. Schools choose the way funds are spent, the staffing schedule and programs as long as schools meet the state requirements for curriculum, assessment and other accountability measures. I foresee this proposal as causing huge debate and protest from LEAs, boards, teachers unions and many more. I cannot ever see a time when LEAs will ever give up their control and independence to State Departments unless for reasons associated with AYP and failing schools. However, I foresee States having more control should they be awarded funds from Race to the Top or other grants. However, I cannot see a district like Simsbury, Greenwich or Glastonbury, for example, to ever allow the state to hire/replace their teachers. It is more reasonable to envision states/districts/communities working together more collaboratively. In closing, I applaud TCOTT’s vision for reform. It is alarming that our nation’s educational system is one in which approximately 40% of students across the nation cannot read at a basic level and average-performing students have made no progress over the last 10 years and have the lowest performing readers become less successful over this same time period. Our nation’s educational system has a significant achievement gap that is showing very small gains in closing. We have students dropping out of school with little direction, hope and career preparation. Our nation needs the commitment from every student, parent, teacher, administrator and citizen to believe in the importance and value of learning. We as a nation need to embrace and foster creativity and innovation in every learner, child and adult. Submitted by D. Ducharme

This reflection I email to all – in order to circumvent our static wiki. Our wiki, by its current design, functions as a compliance mandate for Fellowship graduation. Our current ‘post and walk away’ wiki mode should yield to ongoing online discourse for those who resonate with Fellowship topics. The Fellowship wiki must be a rich forum for us to bat topics back and forth, where we respond to each other and build an ongoing dialogue, building deep meaning. Why can’t the Fellowship wiki be defined as such – a place to build deep understanding of our topics?  My expectation in emailing this to Fellows is to engender deep ongoing dialogue about //Tough Choices or Tough Times//. The Report is an amazing document warranting our touching it more than once. Our Fellowship touches so many topics only once that we are left with minimal architecture – we are left with is ‘touching’ upon various topics related to policy…many not related to policy reform.  I came to our January Fellowship meeting needing to dialogue. I had extensive typed notes, but I had not posted the required ‘written reflection’ for our Fellowship wiki. My personal reflection was stuck…but I had come to class ready! Our small Fellowship group conversation was interesting, and where I was stuck going into the conversation – on the tail end I was really ready to develop my personal refection.  <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">The //Tough Choices or Tough Times// steps are lofty and amazing – they are powerful attractors! Yet my Fellowship group at the January meeting too quickly concluded that the steps were unrealistic considering the current education climate. I will not agree to the outright dismissal of the Report – and that discourse lead to this reflection. Why was my Fellowship group so quick to dismiss? Perhaps educational leaders and policy makers are too entrenched in an education cosmos of our own making to envision and lead deep reform. <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">This reflection considers the Report’s steps not as a sequence, but dismantled in order to identify what Report recommendations are in place, which are proximal, and which are far reaching. I do this in order to build momentum that will move an entrenched educational cosmos to a higher plane of implementation. <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">I’m going to identify the proximal – those that would be most easily implemented and call that PHASE ONE. Phase One steps would be those that we would act on immediately. <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">I concede that some of the report’s steps are far out of range considering the current education climate, but other steps and isolated indicators can be identified as a ‘middle ground’ – and those I group within PHASE TWO implementation – they should come under public discussion in order to create policy reform momentum education visionaries can drive these to public acceptance and implementation. The remaining steps and indicators, those most difficult to achieve, become PHASE THREE implementation. <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">At the January Fellowship meeting, Joanne pointed out that pockets of Tough Choices/Tough Times-type reform currently exists. I agree and would like those examples brought to EPFP consideration. Although it is a time issue for all of us – what do we attack as a cohort – how do we define our mission and vision – do we come together to drive CT public education forward? <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">What is most probable and possible in the Report? Its overall vision is powerful – but can be easily dismissed – as my Fellowship group did. In order to counter that, and in order to create momentum for implementing the Report’s vision, I identify current implementation of the Report’s steps and indicators in order to feed policy reform momentum. What follows is a plucking from the Report’s steps and indicators in order to identify evidence of what may partially be in place in education. <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> //<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Recruit from the top third of the high school graduates going to college for the next generation of school teachers //<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">. <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> //<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Develop standards, assessments, and curriculum that reflect today’s needs and tomorrow’s requirements. //<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">All of the indicators within this step could be realized immediately by that rare district. IB and AP provide this world-standard level of assessment. <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> //<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Create high performance schools and districts – how the system should be governed, financed, organized and managed // <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> //<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Build high-quality full-service early childhood education system for 3 and 4 year olds // <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> //<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Give strong support to the students who need it the most // //<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Salary increments for especially effective teachers // //<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Schools reach out to the community and parents // //<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Require affiliation with a helping agency – teacher collaboratives, for-profit or non-profit // //<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">More monies for low-income or disadvantaged students // <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> //<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Provide high-quality, universal early childhood education // //<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Create personal competitiveness accounts – a GI Bill for our times //<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> //<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Create regional competitiveness authorities to make America Competitive //<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> //<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Build high-quality full-service early childhood ed system for 3 and 4 year olds // //<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Give the disadvantaged students resources needed to succeed against internationally benchmarked educational standards // //<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Teacher as employees of the state // //<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Schools funded directly by the state // //<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">More monies for low-income or disadvantaged students // //<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Recommend Fed develop legislation to encourage states to create regional economic development to develop strategies that make sense to them – coordinate work of region’s ed and training institutions // //<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Enable every member of the adult workforce to get the new literacy skills: offer free to adult the education required to meet the standard set by the Board // John Freeman
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">PHASE ONE: Limited Evidence of what we currently have **<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">In February, at the Hartford’s Superintendent’s Principals’ Conference, the Superintendent announced the restructuring of teacher recruiting, retention and professional development. The overhaul is dramatic. His comments about recruiting lead me to believe that he would advocate for recruiting from the top third of high school graduates.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Through //Race to the Top// we will see a link between salary increments for especially effective teachers.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">The report suggests that teachers are employed by the state. Currently, large school districts provide this at a micro-level. These include the large municipal districts as well as states where school districts are county-wide (e.g. MD)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Considering the indicator that ‘teachers form organizations to operate schools themselves’, charter schools run close to this. At Hartford’s Achievement First, both principals are certified teachers but not certified administrators. This appears to be teachers operating schools themselves.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Canadian public school teachers are employees of the providence.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Provide the kinds of information that the world’s best school exit examinations provide
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Tests that assess: creativity and innovation, self-discipline and organization, functioning as a member of the team
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Move to the kinds of examinations and assessments that capture these and other qualities – requires a major overhaul of the American testing industry.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Train teachers to use standards, assessments, syllabi and materials as well as possible (training akin to physicians)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Charter school are not owned by local districts and receive funding directly from the state
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Many charter schools have at their essence being run by teachers
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Pupil-weighted formula is current in the Hartford Public Schools
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Hartford schools deemed ‘autonomous’ have freedom on how to spend their monies
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Performance incentive, known as ‘leadership pay’ is available through the Hartford teachers’ contract
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Canadian teachers are employees of the province
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">PHASE TWO: What is proximal – some may appear with RTTT **<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">State-funded weighted pupil funding – this exists in CT in part via
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">School open from early to late – hope to see this with the Promise Neighborhoods initiative
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Offer wide range of supportive services to students and families – again, forthcoming with Promise Neighborhoods
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Funds to diagnose students
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Recruit first rate teachers for minority children who look like them and can connect to these children
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">PHASE THREE: Far-afield from where we are **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Training to quickly move to other jobs, professions, industries
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">$31B/year
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">Single most important investment to economic future