We knew right away Obama and Clinton neo-liberals pushing a RACE TO THE TOP as an education reform that was going to help ANYONE----was straight from WORLD BANK and its terminology of RACE TO THE TOP and policies that will maximize global corporate strength-----it is the corporation they want to RACE TO THE TOP----not WE THE PEOPLE.
Below we see all that talk of PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS because it places the public and taxpayers on the hook for corporate operations ---MAXIMIZING PROFITS.
ANOTHER WORD FOR THIS IS PAYING 'TRIBUTES' AS A COLONY DOES.
Here in Baltimore all residents leave their homes in the morning with their hands in the air shouting HANDS UP DON'T LOOT to global Johns Hopkins and its global Wall Street Development Corporation while these institutions shout back HANDS OUT PAY TRIBUTE. The most common way of paying tribute by colonies is supplying SLAVES ---RAW NATURAL RESOURCES----as is happening in Foreign Economic Zone development in the US. Expanding the global labor pool human capital distribution system to all US cities getting Americans ready to be pushed into this slave trade----and allowing global Wall Street to strip all our US natural resources for sale overseas----natural gas, crude oil, timber, rare earth elements-----
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the geographic terminology. For other uses of the word tributary, see Tributary (disambiguation).
Bunga mas, a form of tribute sent to the King of Ayutthaya from its vassal states in the Malay PeninsulaThe term tributary state refers to one of the two main ways in which a pre-modern state might be subordinate to a more powerful state. The heart of the relationship was that the tributary would send a regular token of submission (tribute) to the superior power. This token often took the form of a substantial transfer of wealth, such as the delivery of gold, produce, or slaves, so that tribute might best be seen as the payment of protection money. Or it might be more symbolic: sometimes it amounted to no more than the delivery of a mark of submission such as the bunga mas (golden flower) that rulers in the Malay peninsula used to send to the kings of Siam, or the Tribute of the Maltese Falcon that the Grand Master of the Order of St. John used to send annually to the Viceroy of Sicily in order to rule Malta. It might also involve attendance by the subordinate ruler at the court of the hegemon in order to make a public show of submission.
Race to the top :
attracting and enabling global sustainable business - business survey report (English)
The World Bank Group's Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Practice commissioned the Political and Economic Link Consulting (PELC) and Ethical Corporation, to conduct a study to explore two related issues: a) how corporate social responsibility (CSR) issues influence the investment, and purchase decisions of multinational enterprises (MNEs) around the world; and, b) how governments in the developing world can create environments that companies will find attractive from a CSR perspective. Between December 2002 and March 2003, in-depth interviews were conducted within multinational enterprises in the extractive, agribusiness, and manufacturing sectors. The study was designed to capture the views of the largest purchasers and investors in the target sectors, as well as CSR leaders in each sector. In order to frame the role of CSR in trade and investment, the survey first explored the role of CSR in each MNE's general policy, and management structures. Extractive-sector respondents reported significantly higher percentages of board-approved policies for land rights and environmental issues, than did respondents in manufacturing or agribusiness, while findings suggest U.S., Canadian, and Australian respondents have developed board-approved policies on fewer issues, than respondents in other developed countries. Developing country respondents, in direct response to the HIV/Aids crisis, were more likely to have community health policies, than respondents in developed countries. Among the greatest CSR challenges for MNEs, are their relationships with local partners. Nearly all firms participating in the survey, have made a public commitment to require some level of CSR performance from their local partners. To attract sustainable trade and investment, governments should consider: developing strong laws on corporate social responsibility, that are strongly enforced; addressing MNEs CSR concerns early in the new venture assessment cycle; using local "CSR-ready" companies to promote the country as an investment location; channeling CSR information into media that matter to MNEs; improving their understanding of the corporate CSR codes of target MNEs, and engaging more effectively in international CSR forums. And, to enable sustainable trade and investment, governments should consider : approaching large MNEs for partnerships, using their CSR systems; cultivating local CSR resources for smaller, and developing-country MNEs; brokering multi-corporate partnerships where single-company action is difficult, or inappropriate; and, building a base of "CSR-ready" local companies.
Here is a Maryland State Education Association under a far-right wing Bush neo-conservative/neo-liberal ----shouting against so much testing. The goal of installing PARCC and Race to the Top testing was to end state and old-school achievement testing to make these tests the only ones in town. So, the fact that Maryland is moving towards fewer tests in schools does not address the TEACHING TO THE TEST----THE TESTING AND EVALUATION OF TEACHERS AND STUDENTS that we know is not fair and balanced-----they are simply ending the old and celebrating this.
The old-school testing was never great as well-----our state tests were skewed to allow pols shout WE ARE THE BEST when that state test was weak and without rigor to allow more citizens to score well-----Maryland had one of the weakest in the nation and was allowed to state its achievement on tests were higher than other states---JUKED DATA.
Maryland State Education Association
March 3 at 9:59am · The Less Testing, More Learning Act
just needs to pass the State Senate. If it passes, our children will be able to focus on learning rather than endless testing. Will you email your State Senator now to demand that they support our children’s future?
Here is the dynamic by global Wall Street in rebranding the MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GLOBAL COMMON CORE------they are changing the name of Common Core to be simply state testing while using these same global testing models-----no change in installing Common Core ---just a name change. We know that is what Massachusetts is doing because MA IS HARVARD IS GLOBAL WALL STREET. So the 99% of people are being made to think these pols are listening to them when they are MOVING FORWARD with global national charter chains sold as stocks tied to education rating corporations using these testing and evaluations to sell their BRAND.
The issue of PARCC VS OLD STANDARDIZED TESTS is not the important issue-----as we said many states had weak standardized tests that did need upgrading------the worry is how PARCC is tied to the rest of RACE TO THE TOP testing, evaluation, and tracking our our students.
Massachusetts’s Rejection of Common Core Test Signals Shift in U.S.
By KATE ZERNIKENOV. 21, 2015
PhotoElizabeth DiNolo, center, a teacher at Rumney Marsh Academy in Revere, Mass., handed out graded tests in her eighth-grade algebra class this month. Credit Charlie Mahoney for The New York Times
BOSTON — It has been one of the most stubborn problems in education: With 50 states, 50 standards and 50 tests, how could anyone really know what American students were learning, or how well?
At a dinner with colleagues in 2009, Mitchell Chester, Massachusetts’s commissioner of education, hatched what seemed like an obvious answer — a national test based on the Common Core standards that almost every state had recently adopted.
Now Dr. Chester finds himself in the awkward position of walking away from the very test he helped create.
On his recommendation, the State Board of Education decided last week that Massachusetts would go it alone and abandon the multistate test in favor of one to be developed for just this state. The move will cost an extra year and unknown millions of dollars.
Across the country, what was once bipartisan consensus around national standards has collapsed into acrimony about the Common Core, with states dropping out of the two national tests tied to it that had been the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s education strategy.
But no about-face has resonated more than the one in Massachusetts, for years a leader in education reform. This state embraced uniform standards and tests with consequences more than two decades before the Common Core, and by 2005, its children led all states in the National Assessment of Educational Progress, often called the nation’s report card, and rose above all other countries, save Singapore, in science.
The state’s participation was seen as validation of the Common Core and the multistate test; Dr. Chester became the chairman of the board that oversees the test Massachusetts joined. The state’s rejection of that test sounded the bell on common assessments, signaling that the future will now look much like the past — with more tests, but almost no ability to compare the difference between one state and another.
“It’s hugely symbolic because Massachusetts is widely seen as kind of the gold standard in successful education reform,” said Morgan Polikoff, an assistant professor of education at the University of Southern California, who is leading an evaluation of the national tests. “It opens the door for a lot of other states that are under a lot of pressure to repeal Common Core. Getting rid of these tests is a nice bone to throw.”
The fight in Massachusetts has been dizzying, with a strange alliance between the teachers’ union and a conservative think tank that years before had been a chief proponent of the state’s earlier drive for standards and high-stakes tests. As in other states, conservatives complained of federal overreach into local schooling, while the union objected to tying the tests to teacher evaluations. The debate drew money from national political players like the billionaire David Koch and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Amid the noise, many parents had trouble understanding what the Common Core was, or argued that the nation’s public schoolchildren took too many tests. So while parents and students here did not opt out of testing in the waves they did in places like New York and New Jersey, they also did not express much support.
“It’s much more about politics than it is about education,” said Tom Scott, the executive director of the state superintendents’ association, which had encouraged the state to keep the multistate test.
People on either side of the debate here still celebrate the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993 as “the grand bargain.” Democratic legislators and the Republican governor at the time, William F. Weld, agreed to give schools more money in exchange for ambitious standards defining what students were expected to learn and new tests tied to those standards, including one that, by 2003, students had to pass to graduate from high school.
But while state scores rose, there were still hints that the new standards were not teaching the skills students needed. The number requiring remedial education in college remained high. So the state joined in when the National Governors Association began drafting what became the Common Core, a description of the skills students should learn by the time they graduated from high school. Because of the state’s expertise, large numbers of its teachers joined in writing the standards. The state adopted them in 2010.
Dr. Chester and his counterparts in Louisiana and Florida proposed that states also combine resources on a test, not only to compare results but to afford a better test design.
As states rolled out the new tests over the last two years, parents and teachers pushed back in states from Oregon to Florida. There were technical glitches, as well as complaints that the exams were too hard and too long. When states began reporting poor results, parents and policy makers did not necessarily see the benefit of comparing their schools with others.
But at hearings here this fall, many superintendents and teachers testified that the new test, known as Parcc, for the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, had improved what was happening in classrooms. Given the choice between the state’s old test and the multistate test this spring, more than half the state’s school districts chose Parcc.
DO WE KNOW THE TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS NOW IN PLACE WERE TRAINED TO INSTALL RACE TO THE TOP COMMON CORE?
“If we revert back to the old standards, all this work will have been for naught,” said Dianne Kelly, the superintendent in Revere, who credits the standards for tripling the number of students taking algebra in eighth grade and doubling the number taking Advanced Placement courses.
The opposition came from what might have once seemed an unlikely place, the Pioneer Institute, a conservative think tank that had been a driver behind the higher standards in the 1993 legislation. It had hired Tom Birmingham, who as a Democratic state senator had been a co-author of that legislation. He warned that the state would be pressured to lower standards as other states hid failure by lowering the bar for passing.
“It becomes not a race to the top but a race to the middle,” Mr. Birmingham said in an interview.
The federal government was not involved in writing the Common Core. But Pioneer, like other conservative groups, argued that the Obama administration had forced it on states by granting money to the national tests. As part of its Race to the Top program, the administration in 2010 awarded about $350 million to design the Parcc and the other national test, known as Smarter Balanced.
That argument persuaded even educators who believed the Common Core was improving what happened in the classroom.
“It was almost like extortion — if you want this money, you have to do things the way we want,” said Todd Gazda, the superintendent in Ludlow, near the western Massachusetts city of Springfield.
The president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, Paul Toner, had supported the Parcc test. But in 2014, the membership elected a new president, Barbara Madeloni, who had campaigned against high-stakes tests, period.
“It is destructive to our students and our teachers and the very possibility of joyful and meaningful public education,” Dr. Madeloni said in an interview.
“We’ve really flipped the narrative in a year,” she said.
Supporters of the standards countered that Pioneer’s biggest donors include Mr. Koch and the Walton Family Foundation, funders of other conservative causes. Jim Stergios, Pioneer’s executive director, said, “David Koch never talked to me about Common Core.”
Supporters of Parcc also accused its opponents of distorting facts. The opponents argued, for instance, that the new standards squeezed out literature and poetry. In fact, Common Core requires students to read more nonfiction, but only because it requires them to do expository reading in all subjects, including science and math.
“The opposition was making some wild claims that the proponents answered with factual information, assuming that everyone would take a very rational approach to the facts and reach a valid conclusion,” said Linda M. Noonan, the executive director of the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education, a proponent of higher standards. “But that isn’t how the public process works.”
The multistate exam was not the only one in the glut of testing, but it became the most toxic.
“We blew it,” said Mr. Scott, at the state superintendents’ association. “That’s too bad, because there’s a lot of good that’s going out with it.”
Making his recommendation for a new test to the state board of education, Dr. Chester described it as the best of both worlds. The new test will use Parcc content, which better reflects the Common Core, but the state will maintain the flexibility to change or add material without having to go through a committee of multiple states.
Dr. Chester said Massachusetts would remain in the Parcc consortium so it could compare results with other states.
“We’re increasingly a global world,” he said. “And the idea that 50 different states in the United States had 50 different definitions of what it means to be literate and what it means to know math — and on top of that those 50 states had 50 different assessments to determine whether you’re literate or whether you know math — makes little sense.”
But with states dropping out of the tests, comparisons remain elusive. Parcc began as a cooperation between 26 states, but now only six and the District of Columbia will use the test. Smarter Balanced began with 31 states — some states joined both groups — and now counts 15. Three states have repealed the Common Core altogether, and here a proposed ballot initiative would do the same.
Concerns about the tests have become self-fulfilling. Officials in Massachusetts said that the multistate test had become less appealing now that there were fewer states to compare and that they feared that Parcc would fail, leaving them without a test. Lawmakers in states still using the test point to the states’ withdrawing as evidence that it is not valid.
Still, Michael Cohen, the president of Achieve, a nonprofit founded by business groups and governors that helped states draft the Common Core, noted that even in states that are re-examining it and the Common Core, most are sticking with the higher standards.
“The notion that the Parcc brand is somehow toxic, that has happened and will continue to happen,” he said. “But at the end of the day, there will be, in the overwhelming majority of states, standards that are still highly common.”
Below is an article too long to post but remind ourselves why many people were against Race to the Top from the beginning and NO it wasn't because OBAMA IS BLACK ----this is not OBAMA'S policy just as it wasn't BUSH'S policy. The goal of standardizing the job training of all global labor pool and tracking into vocations killing freedom and liberty----killing personal choice and rights as citizens to determine individual destiny is CRITICAL FOLKS. It was the basis of centuries of public education and America has one of the strongest US Constitutions giving us that freedom and those rights.
When a state says it is leaving COMMON CORE and creating state tests one can easily tell if these standards are still compared to global nations---Singapore testing and achievement is nothing like our US standards and achievement so if pols continue to compare-----they are MOVING FORWARD. If the same global Wall Street pols are in office ----THEY ARE STILL MOVING FORWARD.
democracy & education, vol 19
Joe Onosko is an associate professor in the education department at the University of New Hampshire. His research interests include curriculum issues, secondary social- studies teaching and learning, and teacher preparation.
Race to the Top Leaves Children
and Future Citizens Behind
The Devastating Effects of Centralization, Standardization, and High Stakes Accountability
President Barack Obama’s Race to the Top (RTT) is a profoundly flawed educational reform plan that
increases standardization, centralization, and test- based accountability in our nation’s schools.
Following a brief summary of the interest groups supporting the plan, who is currently participating in this race, why so many states voluntarily submitted proposals, and what features of the plan are most problematic, eight arguments are offered as to why RTT is highly detrimental to our nation.
President Barack Obama’s Race to the Top (RTT)
is a plan that profoundly increases standardization,
centralization, and test- based accountability in our
nation’s schools. For many education observers, it is stunning to see that in less than twenty years we’ve gone from district- designed curriculum and testing, to state- driven standards and testing under Clinton and Bush, to Obama’s national common core standards, national curriculum materials, and high- stakes national tests. I argue here that RTT is a profoundly flawed national education reform plan. Following a brief summary of who is promoting this Race, why it gained traction so quickly with the individual states, and what features of the plan are most problematic, I offer eight reasons why RTT is not in the best interest of the nation and our nation’s children.
As the only problems hit national news and education outlets is that Race to the Top is too much testing----people don't like their data sold and made public----the gorilla in the room is this------ONE WORLD ONE COMMON CORE EDUCATION-----
The problem is this-----a global corporation like UnderArmour will be choosing workers from around the world for 1 position and will look at standardized tests----which private K-12 schools and course lessons did that student pay for and access-----this is the global network of education testing data shared by global Wall Street education corporations with global corporations as employers. If UnderArmour in Panama likes a recent grad living in India-----that student will be sent to Panama--if global Johns Hopkins has a student in US it wants for a corporate campus in Bahrain---that student will go to Bahrain.
It signals a complete breakdown in local US economies---none of these formats are educating citizens to be leaders in their communities building small or regional businesses for citizens to have jobs-----
ONE WORLD ONE EDUCATION is about as TOTALITARIAN/CORPORATE FASCIST AS IT GETS.
Celebrating Student Voice Every Day | One World Education, Inc.
Celebrating Student Voice Every Day | One World Education, Inc.
- See more at ONEWORLDEDUCATION.ORG
One World Education
December 21, 2016 · Our December newsletter is out today, featuring a classroom spotlight on City Arts & Prep, a teacher feature on the wonderful Jovanda Warren, and a student's perspective on how body cameras can help stop police brutality: http://conta.cc/2h2WaTq
Dunbar High School and Prince George's County schools like this----why are our black schools led by ONE WORLD so often? Because our US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones only appoint corporate city school boards and school staff. Baltimore City and Prince George's are those Foreign Economic Zones.
Dunbar High School is tied to Johns Hopkins and this is why ONE WORLD ONE EDUCATION thrives at this school.
This is for what Race to the Top and all that testing and data-collection is created ----it will take only the elementary years for what will be that 3% OF TOTAL WORKFORCE SEEN TO BE HIGH-POTENTIAL-----these are the global citizens who will receive a strong, broad, education while 97% of global citizens are tracked into low-level job training becoming that global factory worker or remain permanently unemployed.....
It is this management of such a small population sector that is seen as COST EFFECTIVE---CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY----and these few global citizens will be trained in ways that will not allow them to change career paths for higher salaries-----it literally traps people into lifelong careers as was true for artisans tied to workshops-----
'Infosys, a global technology services company headquartered in Bangalore, India, limits the high-potential pool to less than 3% of the total work force in an effort to manage expectations and limit potential frustration, productivity loss and harmful attrition'.
Here we see MIT ---Massachusetts ground zero for global Wall Street --telling us it is all about identifying and managing occupational talent and making sure they stay where they are assigned.
This is how we KNOW MASSACHUSETTS is not ending COMMON CORE-----it is rebranding these corporate K-12 structures.
Six Principles of Effective Global Talent Management
Magazine: Winter 2012Research Feature December 21, 2011 Following talent management best practices can only take you so far. Top-performing companies subscribe to a set of principles that are consistent with their strategy and culture.
Internal consistency in talent management practices — in other words, the way a company's talent management practices fit with each other — is key, as companies such as Siemens recognize.
Image courtesy of Siemens.
One of the biggest challenges facing companies all over the world is building and sustaining a strong talent pipeline. Not only do businesses need to adjust to shifting demographics and work force preferences, but they must also build new capabilities and revitalize their organizations — all while investing in new technologies, globalizing their operations and contending with new competitors. What do companies operating in numerous markets need to do to attract and develop the very best employees so they can be competitive globally? To learn how leading multinational companies are facing up to the talent test, we examined both qualitative and quantitative data at leading companies from a wide range of industries all over the world.
About the Research
This paper is based on a multiyear collaborative research project on global talent management practices and principles by an international team of researchers from INSEAD, Cornell, Cambridge and Tilburg universities. The research looked at 33 multinational corporations, headquartered in 11 countries, and examined 18 companies in depth. We selected the case companies based on their superior business performance and reputations as employers, as defined through Fortune listings and equivalent rankings (e.g., the “Best Companies for Leadership” by the Hay Group and Chief Executive magazine).
The case study interviews were semi-structured, covering questions about the business context, talent management practices and HR function. We interviewed HR professionals and managers and also a sample of executives and line managers in an effort to understand the ways companies source, attract, select, develop, promote and move high-potential employees through the organization. A second stage of research consisted of a Web-based survey of 20 companies. The survey contained items on six key talent management practice areas (staffing, training and development, appraisal, rewards, employee relations, and leadership and succession) and the HR delivery mechanisms (including the use and effectiveness of outsourcing, shared services, Web-based HR, off-shoring and on-shoring). Ultimately, we received a total of 263 complete surveys from the Americas, Asia-Pacific, Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
This is for what Race to the Top was written -----the stages of testing and evaluation---vocational tracking and all that data will assess just who of a global labor pool of 3% will have these skills ---the flexibility-----to work a succession of short-term projects to be sent anywhere in the work to do another short term project. Now, I like to shout at my GLOBAL IVY LEAGUE citizens who have been living these global work structures for some decades----as more nations have advanced trained students competing for what will become that smaller and smaller designer manufacturing ---that lower number of Foreign Economic Zones needed to be built----just a few decades from now----
NOT EVEN OUR GLOBAL IVY LEAGUE GRADS WILL BE EMPLOYED SO THAT IS WHY GLOBAL IVY LEAGUES ARE REDUCING ADMISSIONS TO THAT SELECT NUMBER OF GLOBAL CANDIDATES-----
This Race to the Top maximizing corporate profits will leave 99% of global citizens BEHIND.
THOSE 5% TO THE 1% GLOBAL WALL STREET PLAYERS PUSHING THIS MESS----KNOW THIS
'And if leadership pipelines are clogged with employees lacking the appropriate mix of skills and experience to step into pivotal roles, business growth will suffer'.
Does your organization have a strong internal mobility program in place? Without successful talent management tools, your company could see a lag in employee retention as well as
employee engagement. Successful talent mobility programs yield substantial enterprisewide benefits, including lower talent acquisition costs, stronger leadership teams, and better financial performance. Learn how internal mobility programs can help drive your greatest asset—your employees.
—the movement of employees from one position to another within an organization—is an efficient and cost
-effective method of talent deployment that can become a key component of any organization’s talent management strategy.
Over the years, studies have revealed a significant relationship between internal mobility and corporate performance. Seminal research conducted over the course of a decade found that the top 10 percent of companies with “high-performance work systems” had four times the amount of sales per employee. Remarkably, these companies filled more than 60 percent of jobs from within. In contrast, the bottom 10 percent of these companies filled just 35 percent of jobs internally.
In addition, research has shown that many great leaders have emerged from within organizations’ ranks.
With a strong internal mobility program, companies can leverage their employee base to achieve corporate goals, shifting resources where they’re most suited. Best of all, they can do so without the costs and delays associated with a conventional external recruiting process.
Without such a program in place, top talent will be more likely to disengage or depart. After a if they can’t see a career path within the organization, or they realize that other employees are being promoted or recruited without the skills and competencies to do the job, your top talent will likely go elsewhere. And if leadership pipelines are clogged with employees lacking the appropriate mix of skills and experience to step into pivotal roles, business growth will suffer.
Successful talent mobility programs yield substantial enterprisewide benefits, including:
Shorter time to productivity
er employee engagement and retention
Lower talent acquisition costs
Streamlined information flow
Stronger leadership teams
Better financial performance
Regardless of its goals, internal talent redeployment requires access to talent intelligence—that is, information about the skills and aspirations of employee candidates matched with data on the skills and fit for open positions. A comprehensive internal mobility program supported by a holistic talent management technology platform can provide that visibility for employees, managers, recruiters, and talent managers.
The Importance of Internal Mobility Programs
Today, internal mobility programs are receiving more attention than ever before. The reasons for this are many, including the following:
Employees are increasingly viewed as corporate assets.
Driving the focus on internal mobility is
an understanding that a skilled workforce is a cash multiplier. Leading organizations make the link
between staff quality and share
Organizations are scaling back growth plans and reducing external hiring.
Whether it’s due to economic conditions, mergers, acquisitions, or reorganization, many organizations are scaling back.
And to do so, they need to be able to identify and accommodate the top performers in their new,
leaner organizations. In addition, as competition for top talent heightens, corporations will be under additional pressure to establish programs that combat outside offers to key players.
Organizations are looking for agility in assigning and reassigning talent. Corporations must be nimble if they’re
to meet rapid product development cycles, accomplish project
-based work, and respond to a dynamic business environment. This means, for example, that employee teams assembled to accomplish clear, short-term objectives need to be disbanded upon completion so that team members can be efficiently redeployed.
Existing labor shortages are forecast to spread.
These labor shortages present another reason to
retain existing employees through programs that fluidly meet their career goals and desires.
A global economy requires a global workforce. Labor migration trends also point to an increasingly mobile workforce
—all of which means that organizations need to be able to smoothly redeploy key employees to gain valuable international experience.
Organizations are experiencing leadership gaps.
Another benefit of internal mobility is that it allows organizations to develop employees and increase leadership bench strength.
Talent mobility encompasses different initiatives, all of which lead to the same business objective:
making the best match of existing employees with open positions to allow those employees to flourish.
Internal mobility can include promotions and demotions, lateral moves, transfers, and relocations.
Talent mobility should be pervasive throughout a company rather than selective. Some corporations tie internal mobility to performance management or succession planning. At its most effective, talent mobility is a component of a total talent management strategy, which unifies talent acquisition,
performance and compensation, succession planning, and employee development
As we read above global corporations have demanded an efficient pipeline of educated and trained employees meeting a 3% threshold of exceptional workers effectively being the only pathway to high-level management and trades pathways.
America has through modern history not wanted vocational tracking of any kind because our education system is about growing CITIZENS AND LEADERSHIP in all our 99% of people. It has valued broad and deep exposure to a democratic education because that in turn builds good citizens and workers. Here we see in the 1990s-----CLINTON ERA-----when Clinton moved forward ending public education a backlash----so Bush renamed his MOVING FORWARD these same global corporate neo-liberal education policies NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND when global Wall Street pols knew 99% of US citizens would be LEFT BEHIND.
'The anti-tracking movement gained steam in the 1990s. It had little effect on high schools, but middle schools were another story'.
'In sum, recent research indicates that high-achieving students may benefit from tracking and suffer losses from heterogeneous grouping. The studies have primarily assessed achievement effects from one to two years of attending high tracks. The following study takes a longer perspective and examines outcomes at the end of high school that may be associated with tracking in eighth grade'.
All emphasis is placed in identifying those 3-5% of global citizens being exceptional and making sure they get the best of educational experiences while creating the cheapest vehicle for education for 99% of global factory or domestic workers. The reality will be that a great percentage of US citizens will get little or no education because they will be deemed UNEMPLOYABLE.
AFTER THESE FEW DECADES OF CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA WITH LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYMENT FROM US CORPORATIONS GOING OVERSEAS-----GLOBAL WALL STREET HAS CALLED THOSE LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYED -----UNEMPLOYABLE.
AP Classes Are a ScamThe College Board earns over half of all its revenues from the courses—and, in an uncertain environment, students keep being suckered.
- John Tierney
- Oct 13, 2012
Fraudulent schemes come in all shapes and sizes. To work, they typically wear a patina of respectability. That's the case with Advanced Placement courses, one of the great frauds currently perpetrated on American high-school students.
That's a pretty strong claim, right? You bet. But why not be straightforward when discussing a scam the scale and audacity of which would raise Bernie Madoff's eyebrows?
The miscellany of AP courses offered in U.S. high schools under the imprimatur of the College Board probably started with good intentions. The idea, going back to the 1950s, was to offer college-level courses and exams to high-school students. The courses allegedly provide students the kind of rigorous academic experience they will encounter in college as well as an opportunity to earn college credit for the work.
Sounds pretty good. And every year, millions of high-school students enroll in the courses that are offered in 39 different subjects. They do so at an annual growth rate almost ten times the yearly percentage increase in the number of high school graduates. If there weren't something good about AP, would participation in the AP offerings be so high?
Interestingly, the evidence providing the clearest positive argument for AP participation is that high performance in AP courses correlates with better college grades and higher graduation rates, especially in science courses. But that's faint praise. It's the same as saying that students who do best in high school will do better in college and are more likely to graduate.
My beef with AP courses isn't novel. The program has a bountiful supply of critics, many of them in the popular press (see here and here), and many increasingly coming from academia as well (see here). The criticisms comport, in every particular, with my own experience of having taught an AP American Government and Politics course for ten years.
- AP courses are not, in fact, remotely equivalent to the college-level courses they are said to approximate. Before teaching in a high school, I taught for almost 25 years at the college level, and almost every one of those years my responsibilities included some equivalent of an introductory American government course. The high-school AP course didn't begin to hold a candle to any of my college courses. My colleagues said the same was true in their subjects.
- The traditional monetary argument for AP courses -- that they can enable an ambitious and hardworking student to avoid a semester or even a year of college tuition through the early accumulation of credits -- often no longer holds. Increasingly, students don't receive college credit for high scores on AP courses; they simply are allowed to opt out of the introductory sequence in a major. And more and more students say that's a bad idea, and that they're better off taking their department's courses.
- The scourge of AP courses has spread into more and more high schools across the country, and the number of students taking these courses is growing by leaps and bounds. Studies show that increasing numbers of the students who take them are marginal at best, resulting in growing failure rates on the exams. The school where I taught essentially had an open-admissions policy for almost all its AP courses. I would say that two thirds of the students taking my class each year did not belong there. And they dragged down the course for the students who did.
- Despite the rapidly growing enrollments in AP courses, large percentages of minority students are essentially left out of the AP game. And so, in this as in so many other ways, they are at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to college admissions.
- The AP program imposes "substantial opportunity costs" on non-AP students in the form of what a school gives up in order to offer AP courses, which often enjoy smaller class sizes and some of the better teachers. Schools have to increase the sizes of their non-AP classes, shift strong teachers away from non-AP classes, and do away with non-AP course offerings, such as "honors" courses. These opportunity costs are real in every school, but they're of special concern in low-income school districts.
- To me, the most serious count against Advanced Placement courses is that the AP curriculum leads to rigid stultification -- a kind of mindless genuflection to a prescribed plan of study that squelches creativity and free inquiry. The courses cover too much material and do so too quickly and superficially. In short, AP courses are a forced march through a preordained subject, leaving no time for a high-school teacher to take her or his students down some path of mutual interest. The AP classroom is where intellectual curiosity goes to die.
Many critics lay the blame on the College Board itself, a huge "non-profit" organization that operates like a big business. The College Board earns over half of all its revenues from its Advanced Placement program -- more than all its other revenue streams (SATs, SAT subject tests, PSATs) combined. The College Board's profits for 2009, the most recent year for which records were available, were 8.6 percent of revenue, which would be respectable even for a for-profit corporation. "When a non-profit company is earning those profits, something is wrong," says Americans for Educational Testing Reform. (The AETR's "report card" on the College Board awards a grade of D and cites numerous "areas of misconduct" by the College Board.)
It's clear the College Board has the mentality of a voracious corporation, charging $89 a shot for an exam to millions of students who have no business taking it.
The college admissions process today is a total crapshoot. At least for the most competitive colleges, nobody in the applicant pool has any certainty anymore as to what will secure admission. In the face of that uncertainty, one rational form of behavior is to take the shotgun approach, blasting away at the admissions committee with every weapon in the student's armory: multiple AP courses, ridiculous amounts of extracurricular activity, and do-gooder volunteer work rivaling Mother Teresa's.
Lots of guidance counselors will advise families and students that a rational alternative is to opt out of that race. Concentrate on one or two things. Excel at them. I agree.
But it shouldn't be the customer's responsibility to stop a scam. The customer buys into it because the con artist is so skillful and the world is so uncertain. The only way to stop the College Boards of the world is to expose them. Tell people to be wary.
So, students and parents: beware.