Tough Choices or Tough Times: The
Report of the New Commission on
the Skills of the American Workforce
by National Center on Education and
the Economy
Finally, A Comprehensive Strategy Forward
Tough Choices or Tough Times, the 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. This new revised and expanded version of Tough
Choices or Tough Times includes: An updated Introduction A
summary of the Commissions proposals Commentaries on the
proposals by Denis Doyle, Lawrence Mishel, Michael Petrilli, Diane
Ravitch, and Richard Rothstein, with responses from members of the

Commission. Tough Choices or Tough Times provides a well-
researched analysis of the issues and a compelling set of proposals for
changing our system of education.
Personal Review: Tough Choices or Tough Times: The Report
of the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce
by National Center on Education and the Economy
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.
For More 5 Star Customer Reviews and Lowest Price:
Tough Choices or Tough Times: The Report of the New Commission on the Skills of the
American Workforce by National Center on Education and the Economy 5 Star Customer
Reviews and Lowest Price!