Recently, there has been an impetus to place for-profit performance-markers in the not-for-profit education sector. While everyone agrees that public money should only be spent...
April 20, 2007 (Press Release) --
Recently, there has been an impetus to place for-profit performance-markers in the not-for-profit education sector. While everyone agrees that public money should only be spent on programs, initiatives, and teachers that produce results, finding an accurate and realistic means for measuring pedagogy has proved difficult.
The difficulty in finding a middle ground hasn’t stopped the NCLB commission—led by Roy E. Barnes and Tommy Thompson—from suggesting that teachers and principals should be judged by their students’ test scores. In addition, the NCLB commission suggested that the performance of specific students be tracked from year to year. In response to the aggressive means that the NCLB commission is seeking to place on higher education, Edward J. McElroy—president of the American Federation of Teachers—stated that: “there is no reliable assessment systems(s) to tie student achievement to teacher performance.”1
Meanwhile in New York State, Eliot Spitzer and Manuel Rivera have carved out an additional $7 billion a year—which will boost the total yearly spend to $24.8 billion by 2010—for “performance based” school funding. In an effort to do away with the antiquated funding that New York State currently employs, each of the State’s school districts are obligated to sign a “contract of excellence” in order to secure funding. The push towards a measurably pedagogic system provides the education system with more funding, while making superintendents, administrators, and teachers accountable.
In contrast to the tact that the NCLB commission has taken, Spitzer’s approach to policy change and implementation has been more collaborative in nature: especially when compared with former Governor Pataki.
Commissioner of Education Richard P. Mills noted that Gov Spitzer delivered his speech in the education department building, included regents on his transition team, and invited board members to
help lead the charge for his agenda…. “He’s offering a partnership. It’s not always been like this,” Mr Mills said. “He’s giving us strong leadership. This is how it’s done.” 2
On a more global scale, the push towards performance-based education has been promoted as a means for maintaining the competitive work force, and the quality of life of the United States Of America. On December 14, 2006 the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce panel recommended that schools be operated by independent contractors, as well as giving states funding power, rather than local school districts. This panel is composed of New York City schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein; two former labor secretaries, William E. Brock, a Republican, and Ray Marshall, a Democrat; two former federal education secretaries, Rod Paige, a Republican, and Richard W. Riley, a Democrat and others. The panel’s recommendation comes in the wake of many claims that the American workforce is becoming less competitive. The AFT executive vice president, Antonia Cortese, noted
The difficulty in finding a middle ground hasn’t stopped the NCLB commission—led by Roy E. Barnes and Tommy Thompson—from suggesting that teachers and principals should be judged by their students’ test scores. In addition, the NCLB commission suggested that the performance of specific students be tracked from year to year. In response to the aggressive means that the NCLB commission is seeking to place on higher education, Edward J. McElroy—president of the American Federation of Teachers—stated that: “there is no reliable assessment systems(s) to tie student achievement to teacher performance.”1
Meanwhile in New York State, Eliot Spitzer and Manuel Rivera have carved out an additional $7 billion a year—which will boost the total yearly spend to $24.8 billion by 2010—for “performance based” school funding. In an effort to do away with the antiquated funding that New York State currently employs, each of the State’s school districts are obligated to sign a “contract of excellence” in order to secure funding. The push towards a measurably pedagogic system provides the education system with more funding, while making superintendents, administrators, and teachers accountable.
In contrast to the tact that the NCLB commission has taken, Spitzer’s approach to policy change and implementation has been more collaborative in nature: especially when compared with former Governor Pataki.
Commissioner of Education Richard P. Mills noted that Gov Spitzer delivered his speech in the education department building, included regents on his transition team, and invited board members to
help lead the charge for his agenda…. “He’s offering a partnership. It’s not always been like this,” Mr Mills said. “He’s giving us strong leadership. This is how it’s done.” 2
On a more global scale, the push towards performance-based education has been promoted as a means for maintaining the competitive work force, and the quality of life of the United States Of America. On December 14, 2006 the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce panel recommended that schools be operated by independent contractors, as well as giving states funding power, rather than local school districts. This panel is composed of New York City schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein; two former labor secretaries, William E. Brock, a Republican, and Ray Marshall, a Democrat; two former federal education secretaries, Rod Paige, a Republican, and Richard W. Riley, a Democrat and others. The panel’s recommendation comes in the wake of many claims that the American workforce is becoming less competitive. The AFT executive vice president, Antonia Cortese, noted
Email
Print
SPAM
