Week 4 Discussion 1Employee Testing Please respond to the fo.docx

Week 4 Discussion 1
"Employee Testing" Please respond to the following:
· Evaluate the types of employee testing that companies may
require that are discussed in the text. Determine the two tests
that you consider the most important. Support your reasoning.
· Go to Human Metric’s Websiteand take the Jung Typology
Test™ (sample of the Myers Briggs personality test). Next,
examine your test results. Determine whether you believe this
type of personality test is beneficial to an organization. Support
your position
Week 4 Discussion 2
"Employee Selection" Please respond to the following:
· Compare and contrast the structured interview, situational
interview, and behavioral interview. Determine which type of
interview would be more beneficial when interviewing
applicants. Support your selection.
· In the selection of the candidate, determine if the manager
should make the final choice or if others should be included in
the final decision. Support your position.
Assignment 2: Job Analysis / Job Description
Due Week 4 and worth 100 points
Go to YouTube, located at http://www.youtube.com/, and search
for an episode of “Under Cover Boss”. Imagine you are the CEO
of the company in the selected episode.
Write a two to three (2-3) page paper in which you:
1. Compare two (2) job positions from the episode and perform
a job analysis of each position.
2. Describe your method of collecting the information for the
job analysis (i.e., one-on-one, interview, survey, etc.).

3. Create a job description from the job analysis.
4. Justify your belief that the job analysis and job description
are in compliance with state and federal regulations.
5. Use at least three (3) quality academic resources in this
assignment. Note: Wikipedia and other Websites do not qualify
as academic resources.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
· Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size
12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references
must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your
professor for any additional instructions.
· Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment,
the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and
the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included
in the required assignment page length.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this
assignment are:
· Formulate HRM strategies and policies to recruit, select,
place, and retain the most efficient and effective workforce.
· Develop effective talent management strategies to recruit and
select employees.
· Design processes to manage employee performance, retention,
and separation.
· Use technology and information resources to research issues in
strategic human resource development.
· Write clearly and concisely about strategic human resource
development using proper writing mechanics.

2
Article Review Paper #2
Summary:
The article is based on the findings of a survey that was
administered by the authors and their team of scholars to a few
representative sample respondents throughout the United States
in May and June of the year 2015. The sample size for this
study was 4083 people which included teachers, African-
Americans, and Hispanics. The article is trying to examine the
general feeling of the public regarding the implementation of
the no child left behind act (NCLB), which was proposed by
congress in 2015 as a method of assessing the performance and
productivity of teachers and schools. Despite the large number
of parents who opted out of the testing, the bill was still pushed
through congress, seemingly against the will of the people. A
revision of the bill proposed that students be tested in
mathematics and reading from grade 3 to grade 8 and even in
high school.
The article further gives its findings regarding the general
opinion on the role of the different stakeholders such as the
government in setting up education standards, determining what
constitutes a failing school and coming up with remedies to a
failing school. While the highest number of respondents believe
that the state government should have the biggest say in setting
up education standards, determining what constitutes a failing
school and coming up with remedies to a failing school, some
people thing that the federal government and the local
government should have a role in this, although the support for
the latter is relatively lower than that of the state governments.
The suggestion, in this case, would be that the biggest role
should indeed be given to the state government because unlike
the federal government which is responsible for a broad

territory and as such may not be able to effectively narrow
down its focus to the requirements and the situation of the each
school or the local governments which may be too small and
less equipped to carry out an effective evaluation, the state
governments are in the best position to acquire best machinery
and mechanisms of evaluating the performance of schools
within their territory. The state governments are most
conversant with the situation within its territory and can thus
evaluate schools more fairly than the federal and local
governments.
The results of the article further indicate that most of the people
who participated in the research are not fully aware of the use
of the Common Core within their state. The Common Core is a
set of standards which are meant to standardize mathematics
and reading across the nation. However, the number of people
within the teaching fraternity and the general public who oppose
the use of Common core is on the rise. Although standardization
across the states would be important so that all schools can be
measured using a common national scale, the strategy would be
less effective since some states have a competitive advantage
over others, hence standardization would portray a deceptive
score that would have the effect of demoralization.
Critique:
The methodology used in carrying out this study was effective
as it covered most of the major stakeholders from different
angles. For example, the article covered the opinion of the
parents, the teachers, and the public. In addition to categorizing
the sample population based on these three classes, the article
further classified them based on the political affiliation as
Democrats and Republican which was important as it helped
further declassify the opinions of the stakeholders and
understand the reason they hold so dearly to their opinions.
However, the sample size used does not seem to represent the
whole nation, hence there is a possibility that should the sample
size be wider, the results would be different.

74 E d u c a t i o n a l l E a d E r s h i p / n o v E m b E r 2
0 1 6
A
ll across the United States, decisions cham-
pioned in the name of school “reform” are
segregating students on the basis of race and
class and exacerbating education inequities.
In cities such as New York, Philadelphia,
Chicago, and Detroit, traditional public schools that serve
low-income students of color have been closed, consoli-
dated, or co-located with charter schools. The officials ini-
tiating these reforms rationalize such drastic measures by
claiming funding constraints, low enrollment, or inadequate
performance. They also claim the reforms will ultimately
benefit disadvantaged students.
But this is not what the evidence shows. In many cases,
new charter schools serve proportionally fewer students
with disabilities and English language learners. The poorest
communities lose access to neighborhood schools, some
of which have been there for 100 years. School closures
impact the most disadvantaged and vulnerable students—
students who are undocumented, homeless, formerly
incarcerated, or in foster care (see Institute for Children,
Poverty, & Homelessness, 2010). The majority of students
end up in under-resourced schools that are no better than
the ones they attended before (de la Torre & Gwynne,
2009). Students subject to closures typically transfer to

schools that don’t facilitate significant gains in achievement
(de la Torre & Gwynne, 2009; Kirshner, Gaertner, &
Pozzoboni, 2010; Sunderman & Payne 2009).
The State of the State
Recent reports by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office
for Civil Rights (2016) show that educational disparities
in discipline and race are widespread. Black preK–12 stu-
The (Evasive)
Language of
SCHOOL
REFORM
Communities speak openly about the consequences of
reforms on race and class, but the public officials they
deal with sidestep those issues entirely.
Pedro A. Noguera and Jill C. Pierce
P
H
O
T
O
B
Y
B
O
B

C
O
L
T
E
R
Noguera1.indd 74 9/26/16 1:50 PM
A S C D / w w w . A S C D . o r g 75
dents are suspended at higher rates than white students,
and K–12 students with disabilities are suspended more
frequently than students without disabilities. Further,
the Civil Rights Project (Kucsera, 2014; Orfield & Fran-
kenberg, 2014) has documented that racial segregation in
schools is growing, particularly in the largest cities.
For the first time in U.S. history, a majority of children
in public schools come from families in poverty (Southern
Education Foundation, 2015). But state and federal edu-
cation policies have largely ignored the impact of growing
economic inequality and demographic change on public
schools. For this reason, we’re addressing the “equity
impact” of current urban education reforms on poor
children of color. New York City, the nation’s largest school
system and an epicenter of reform, serves as the case study
for our analysis.
Bloomberg, de Blasio, and School Reform
The inequitable impact of school reform strategies in New
York City reflects nationwide trends. Similar to patterns

elsewhere, the New York City schools that are scheduled
for consolidation serve, on average, a population that com-
prises 92 percent black and Latino students, 31 percent
students with disabilities, 13 percent English language
learners, and 90 percent students living in poverty (New
York City Department of Education [NYC DOE], 2016).
New York City closed 140 schools from 2002 to 2013
under Mayor Bloomberg (Layton, 2013). Under current
Mayor de Blasio, the schools facing consolidations as a
result of under-enrollment are simultaneously experiencing
the expansion of charter schools in their districts and
neighborhoods. Compared with traditional public schools,
in which 21 percent of students served have disabilities
and 14 percent are English language learners (NYC DOE,
2016), the new charter schools serve an average of only 16
percent students with disabilities and 6 percent English
language learners. Ironically, the reforms implemented by a
more liberal mayor are exacerbating disparities in access to
schools.
In New York City, decisions about closing and consoli-
dating traditional public schools and about “co-location” of
charter and noncharter schools in the same facility require
0 1 6
a local public hearing and a separate
public comment period. The Panel
for Educational Policy (the PEP)—

which consists of 13 appointed
members and the chancellor—then
votes on each proposal. From a tech-
nical standpoint, the process appears
fair. However, close examination
reveals that these decisions have long
fallen primarily on schools serving
disadvantaged student populations.
For the last two years, we have
monitored local hearings and public
comment periods. We wanted to
know whether the pledge to address
disparities in learning opportunities
was borne out in the decisions made
regarding individual schools. We
examined public discourse from com-
munity members and district offi-
cials, as well as the language used to
rationalize the decisions.1 We found
that although community members
speak openly about race, class, and
equity-related consequences of deci-
sions, district officials prefer to adopt
an “equity-blind” response—that is,
they tend to defend proposals without
acknowledging their impact on low-
income communities of color.
Such coded language is cause for
concern. Those who carry out these
reforms often seek to avoid the trou-
blesome race and class issues inherent
in their decisions. Consequently,
under the guise of reform, commu-
nities facing poverty and social iso-

lation are now experiencing a dramatic
disinvestment in their traditional
public schools.
Community Members Silenced
In the hearings, community members
drew attention to the demographic
characteristics of their student popu-
lations, noting that heavy concen-
trations of high-needs populations
brought significant challenges to
their schools. They were concerned
that co-locations would perpetuate
segregation—for example, by taking
away space mandated for services to
special needs students even as the
co-located charter schools typically
underenroll and underserve such
students. Speakers noted that school
closures have become inevitable for
schools that serve populations that
other schools have managed to avoid.
One teacher described her school’s
population as “students who live in
shelters, children who have been
forced to flee their country to be in a
country that will welcome them, and
children who have been kicked out
of charter schools.” Said one speaker,
schools that “happily take all kids who
enter our doors” consequently find
their space—and their survival—in
jeopardy.
In their responses, district offi-

cials steadfastly avoided these issues,
preferring to point out the technical
failings of the schools, such as low
enrollment, test scores, or graduation
rates. They ignored the community
members’ equity-conscious comments
and considered the complaints about
segregated populations, class and
racial inequities, and histories of dis-
placement “off topic.”
At one meeting, a parent noted,
“The department of education is only
co-locating in communities of color
and low socioeconomic standing.
There are no co-locations in the
schools of rich communities.” Offi-
cials typically deemed these remarks
as unrelated to the proposal and
unworthy of a response.
Colormute and Equity Blind
When district officials did respond to
such comments, they often oversim-
plified or evaded the issues. In answer
to a concern that a charter school
didn’t serve enough homeless stu-
dents, administrators merely repeated
official policy: “Any child eligible
for admission to a district school,
including homeless students and
students in temporary housing, is eli-
gible for admission to a public charter
school.” However, as a teacher pointed
out, the charter application process

presents a barrier to the lowest-income
families because “not every parent
PHOTO BY BOB COLTER
A S C D / w w w . A S C D . o r g 77
in our community can negotiate the
tedious process of a lottery.”
Officials also downplayed parents’
concerns by explaining that differ-
ences in student subgroups naturally
fluctuated among schools. Although
the statement is accurate on one level,
it ignores the fact that many charter
and public schools have found ways to
exclude the most vulnerable students
(Caref, Hainds, Hilgendorf, Jankov, &
Russell, 2012).
Several speakers noted the stark
differences in the students served by
a charter school that was asking for
space in a building to be shared with
three other schools. Five percent of
the students at the charter school were
identified as English language learners,
as opposed to 25, 37, and 33 percent
at the three other schools. Likewise, 11
percent of the students at the charter
school were identified as having dis-

abilities, compared with 25, 21, and
21 percent at the other schools.
References to schools working with
“all students” often served to obscure
equity concerns. For example, one
communiqué about a school consoli-
dation read, “All current and future
students enrolled at the consolidated
[school] will continue to receive all
mandated services if this proposal is
approved, and all schools will have
sufficient space within their Footprint
allocation to meet their students’
needs.”
This type of official discourse prom-
ising the success of “all students” is
indicative of what Mica Pollock (2004)
refers to as a colormute approach
to education—that is, a refusal to
acknowledge that a policy or practice
targets or disadvantages a particular
student population. Although all stu-
dents were supposed to continue to get
mandated services if proposals were
approved, students have frequently
been denied the resources they need
once proposals have been enacted. In
cases of co-location, the district has
often insisted that “space will be dis-
tributed equitably.” But that’s simply
not what many teachers, students,
and parents who have experienced
co-located buildings say.

Equitable space sharing and
thoughtful collaboration among
schools were rare in co-locations.
Families and school staff members
told stories of students losing time in
libraries, gymnasiums, and cafeterias
or seeing their dental clinic or com-
puter labs dismantled when a charter
school moved in. Students were often
compelled to learn “in hallways and
closets,” with guidance counselors and
special education teachers providing
services in equally cramped areas and
stairwells. The schools serving the
neediest children typically lost out in
the competition for resources. In fact,
“all” students were not served equally
well.
Taking Action on Equity
In parts of New York City, conversa-
tions about school segregation have
proliferated, particularly over the
last year (Hannah-Jones, 2016; Wall,
2015a). After the release of a report
that cited New York City schools as
among the most segregated in the
United States (Kucsera, 2014), officials
from the city’s department of edu-
cation reluctantly conceded that inte-
gration can inch forward if particular
schools push for it on a case-by-case
basis (Fertig, 2016; Wall, 2015b).

They’ve also encouraged schools to
“brand” and “market” themselves to
families (potential customers) (Khan,
2016)—and, in a surprising display
of weak leadership from a “pro-
gressive” mayor and administration,
they’ve said that local parent advocacy
groups should be the ones to “deal
with diversity” (Haimson, 2016). The
public officials seem to have ruled out
the possibility of working creatively to
balance student populations, investing
in education opportunities in high-
needs neighborhoods, and satisfying
parents’ choices, as other districts
committed to desegregation have done
(Alves & Willie, 1987; Fiske, 2002).
Urban districts could implement
a number of strategies to combat
segregation and address the under-
enrollment that often leads to co-
location, consolidation, or closure.
In New York City, some community
members are pushing for controlled
choice, a student assignment policy
that would distribute high-needs
student subgroups equitably among
schools districtwide (Community Edu-
cation Council for District One, 2015).
Equitable admissions policies would
be combined with more compre-
hensive support and inclusion of fam-
ilies in need, with the aim of helping
these families gain access to high-
quality educational programming. In

addition, some advocates are calling
for funding and support so schools can
offer students dual-language programs,
magnet programs, and programs in
science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM). Increasing
opportunities in schools across dis-
The schools serving
the neediest children
typically lost out
in the competition
for resources. “All”
students were not
served equally well.
0 1 6
tricts would provide parents with
high-quality choices, lead to more
integrated schools, and—combined
with proactive admissions strategies
and investment from districts—could
prevent many schools from becoming
under-enrolled.

From Equity Blind
to Equity Conscious
Educators who recognize that equity is
vital to the future of public education
are joining the equity-conscious con-
versations that are now emerging in
New York City. Their expertise and
their compassion for the children they
serve will amplify the voices of parents
and community members who are des-
perately seeking allies.
As sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva
(2014) reminds us, equity-blind and
colormute discourse perpetuates the
status quo by making the needs of the
most vulnerable invisible. To make
greater progress in meeting the needs of
our most disadvantaged students, we
must focus on strategies aimed at
reducing disparities in education oppor-
tunities—and place equity and racial
integration at the center of reform. EL
1Citations and full references for quota-
tions from public comment hearings and
public meetings of the Panel for Educational
Policy are included in the online version of
this article at www.ascd.org/el1116noguera.
References
Alves, M. J., & Willie, C. V. (1987). Con-
trolled choice assignments: A new and
more effective approach to school deseg-

regation. Urban Review, 19(2), 67–88.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2014). Racism without
racists: Color-blind racism and the per-
sistence of racial inequality in America
(4th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Caref, C., Hainds, S., Hilgendorf, K.,
Jankov, P., & Russell, K. (2012). The
black and white of education in Chicago’s
public schools. Chicago Teachers Union.
Retrieved from www.ctunet.com/root/
text/CTU-black-and-white-of-chicago-
education.pdf
Community Education Council for Dis-
trict One. (2015). Resolution in support
of a controlled choice admission policy.
Retrieved from https://cecdistrictone.
files.wordpress.com/2015/12/resolution-
in-support-of-controlled-choice-cec1.
pdf
de la Torre, M., & Gwynne, J. (2009).
When schools close: Effects on displaced
students in Chicago Public Schools.
Chicago: Consortium on Chicago
School Research.
Fertig, B. (2016, May 31). City invites
more schools to try diversity initiatives.
Retrieved from WNYC at www.wnyc.
org/story/city-invites-more-schools-try-
diversity-initiatives

Fiske, E. B. (2002). Controlled choice in
Cambridge, Massachusetts. In Divided
we fail: Coming together through public
school choice (pp. 167–208). New York:
Century Foundation.
Haimson, L. (2016). Mayoral control
hearings and my testimony about
why it’s an undemocratic and frankly
racist governance system [blog post].
Retrieved from NYC Public School
Parents at http://nycpublicschoolparents.
blogspot.com/2016/05/mayoral-control-
hearings-and-my.html
Hannah-Jones, N. (2016, June 9).
Choosing a school for my daughter
in a segregated city. New York Times
Magazine.
Institute for Children, Poverty & Home-
lessness (2010). The impact of school
closures on homeless students in New York
City. New York: Author. Retrieved from
www.icphusa.org/pdf/reports/icph_
schoolclosurespolicyreport.pdf
Khan, Y. (2016, May 4). Chancellor
encourages schools to “rebrand” better.
Schoolbook.org. Retrieved from www.
wnyc.org/story/chancellor-encourages-
schools-rebrand-better
Kirshner, B., Gaertner, M., & Pozzoboni,
K. (2010). Tracing transitions: The

effect of high school closure on dis-
placed students. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 32(3), 407-429. doi:
10.3102/0162373710376823
Kucsera, J., with Orfield, G. (2014). New
York State’s extreme school segregation:
Inequality, inaction, and a damaged
future. Los Angeles: Civil Rights Project/
Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Los Angeles:
UCLA.
Layton, L. (2013, January 29). Activists to
U.S. Education Department: Stop school
closings now. Washington Post.
New York City Department of Education.
(2016). Demographic snapshot 2011–12
to 2015–16 (Data file). Retrieved from
http://schools.nyc.gov/Accountability/
data/default.htm
Orfield, G., & Frankenberg, E., with Ee,
J., & Kucsera, J. (2014). Brown at 60:
Great progress, a long retreat, and an
uncertain future. Civil Rights Project/
Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Los Angeles:
UCLA.
Pollock, M. (2004). Colormute: Race
talk dilemmas in an American school.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Southern Education Foundation. (2015).

A new majority: Low-income students
now a majority in the nation’s public
schools (Research Bulletin). Atlanta, GA:
Author.
Sunderman, G. L. & Payne, A. (2009).
Does closing schools cause educational
harm? A review of the research (Infor-
mation Brief). Arlington, VA: Mid-
Atlantic Equity Center.
U.S. Department of Education, Office for
Civil Rights. (2016). 2013–2014 civil
rights data collection: A first look: Key
data highlights on equity and oppor-
tunity gaps in our nation’s public schools.
Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/about/
offices/list/ocr/docs/2013-14-first-look.
pdf
Wall, P. (2015a, December 23). School
segregation debates grabbed New
York headlines in 2015. Now what?
Chalkbeat. Retrieved from www.
chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2015/12/23/
school-segregation-debates-grabbed-
new-york-headlines-in-2015-now-what
Wall, P. (2015b, November 19). Exclusive:
After year delay, city will allow diversity
plans at several schools. Chalkbeat.
Retrieved from www.chalkbeat.org/
posts/ny/2015/11/19/city-to-allow-some-
schools-to-move-forward-with-diversity-
plans-sources-say

Pedro A. Noguera ([email protected]
ucla.edu; @PedroANoguera) is Dis-
tinguished Professor of Education at
UCLA’s Graduate School of Education
& Information Studies. Jill C. Pierce
([email protected]) is a doctoral student
at the Steinhardt School of Culture,
Education, and Human Development,
New York University. They are coeditors,
with Roey Ahram, of Race, Equity, and
Education: Sixty Years from Brown
(Springer, 2016).
Copyright of Educational Leadership is the property of
Association for Supervision &
Curriculum Development and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Week 4 Discussion 1Employee Testing Please respond to the fo.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Week 4 Discussion 1Employee Testing Please respond to the fo.docx

Similar to Week 4 Discussion 1Employee Testing Please respond to the fo.docx (18)

More from cockekeshia

More from cockekeshia (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Week 4 Discussion 1Employee Testing Please respond to the fo.docx