The collective point of view of the attending CEO's is that companies have undergone radical changes to become globally competitive, now it's time to keep the work force equally competitive. And this can only come through radical changes in the educational system. The CEO's point out that the companies they represent live or die by the (international) standards they establish, some of which are expressed in the principles of Total Quality Management (TQM), which represents a systemic approach to the changes American industry had to undergo to stay competitive.

The executives clearly have run out of patience with the current system of public education. Many feel that they are running out of talented people to fill the important jobs that this society will need to fill to keep it moving forward. That talent is not being developed by the American education system. Much of the impatience of the CEO's seems to be with the parents of school children who consistently believe that their children's schools are fine; it's all the other schools that have problems. However, those who do the hiring know that only a few public schools are as good as parents think. So, the CEO's seem ready to push a national standard that will allow parents to compare their schools with others. The strategy is simple enough, but the devil is in the definition of the standard. The definition of standards is but one of the areas that the CEO's feel need attention. The other two are assessment and accountability. These Palisades principles--standards, assessment, and accountability--incorporate echoes of some of the ideas found in the recently published National Education Standards except, perhaps, in the area of accountability.

The CEO's seem to want to deal with accountability through competition. If a school or school system does not measure up to the established standards, parents will be moved to place their children in schools with demonstrably better assessment results that reflect the standards. This scenario implies that parents should have the right to send their children where they feel that they will get a "better education." One does not have to invoke a system that allows decisions to be made between the private and public sectors. Just permitting a child to enroll in any (appropriate) school in a local public school system would accomplish much, especially if the per-pupil tax dollars followed the student. This (limited) choice, which is the basis for a competitive system of education, is another key item in the CEO's agenda for improving schools. The choice issue is, perhaps, one of the shoals upon which the CEO's ideas may flounder, expecially if questions regarding private schools surface.

Less well though-out or articulated are several other tactics. For example, some CEO's suggested that the quality of the school system could be used as a part of the basis for locating new commercial facilities. In effect, local job creation could become a reward for communities that produce quality school systems.

Another idea floating around the Education Summit are financial incentives for students entering the work force based on grades achieved. It was observed that students who do not plan to go to college have no real reason to excel because entry-level wages for "C" students are the same as those for "A" students. The high school diploma is not seen as a sign of education, but as evidence of perseverance and a work ethic. The argument that excellence in high school performance should be rewarded in a better paying entry-level job stems from the "competitive philosophy" that currently drives most well-run national companies. Such decisions are ultimately in the hands of the companies who can make changes unilaterally. Whether they have the confidence that grades from diverse educational environments can be normalized for comparative purposes is another issue, one that colleges and universities have struggled with for many years.

The CEO-driven report, the formal version of which has not yet been issued, portends a potentially "interesting" watershed for all who have a legitimate interest in the educational system.