This piece offers a good example of countering disinformation in thinking about education. Some highlights include:

“Accountability,” a term that has been with us, late and soon. Its six syllables trip by as the background white noise in the liturgy of higher education…You know what happens with liturgies: after so many repetitions, there is no recompense. We don’t really know what we are saying. In this case, the six-syllable perfect scan, “accountability,” simply floats by as what we assume to be a self-evident reality. Even definitions wind up in circles, e.g., “In education, accountability usually means holding colleges accountable for the learning outcomes produced.” One hopes Burck Smith, whose paper containing this sentence was delivered at an American Enterprise Institute conference last November, held a firm tongue-in-cheek with the core phrase.

The 2005 report of the National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education puts “accountability” in a pinball machine where “goals” become “objectives” become “priorities” become “goals” again. One wins points along the way, but has no idea of what they represent.

In fact, all levels of education are subjected to this confusion: standards are confused with goals such that the desired outcome is confused with the indicators of the outcome, leading to the dehumanizing act of teaching to the test. Instead of teaching being driven by goals — by philosophy and a broad sense of purpose — the indicators become the goals.  This process has now morphed into the mindless repeating of pet phrases of granting agencies and other “decision makers” to show “buy in”.  I suppose it is evidence of the irrationality of marketing “group think” in addition to the decline in rationale public discourse.

Adelman continues:

So what kind of creature is this species called “accountability”? Readers who recall Joseph Burke’s introductory chapter to his Achieving Accountability in Higher Education (Wiley, 2004) will agree that I am hardly the first nearsighted crazy person to ask the question. This essay will come at the word in a different way and from a different tradition than Burke’s political theory.

I am inviting readers to join in thinking about accountability together, with the guidance of some questions that are both metaphysical and practical. Our adventure through these questions is designed as a prodding to all who use the term to tell us what they are talking about before they otherwise simply echo the white noise.

And I hope people join in; as one last excerpt:

If accountability in higher education is a contractual relationship, we’ve got problems. The “goods” or “services” to be rendered by the offeror are usually indeterminate; there is no formal statement of obligations. The institution does not pledge to students that its efforts will produce specified learning, persistence and graduation, productive labor market entry, or a good life. We don’t put low persistence or graduation rates in a folder subject to educational malpractice suits. Nor does the institution pledge to public funding authorities that it will produce X number of graduates, Y dollars of economic benefits, or Z volume of specified community services, or be subject to litigation if it fails to reach these benchmarks.

Related posts

• Is Thinking a “Skill”? Values and Problems in Thinking About the “Liberal Arts” (0)
• Realism and Social Change (0)
• Are Tests Measures of Test Taking Ability? (0)
• The Questions of Education Reform Are Really Questions of Who Decides (2)
• American Enterprise Institute Holds Forum on “Increasing Accountability in American Higher Education” (0)

Let me also say a word to President Harvey, a president who bleeds Hampton blue. In a single generation, Hampton has transformed from a small black college into a world-class research institution. That transformation has come through the efforts of many people, but it has come through President Harvey’s efforts, in particular, and I want to commend him for his leadership.

I also want to recognize the Board of Trustees, faculty, alums, family, and friends with us today. And most importantly, I want to congratulate all of you, the Class of 2010 – I take it none of you walked across Ogden Circle.

We meet here today, as graduating classes have met for generations, not far from where it all began, near that old oak tree off Emancipation Drive. I know my University 101. There, beneath its branches, by what was then a Union garrison, about twenty students gathered on September 17, 1861. Taught by a free citizen, in defiance of Virginia law, the students were escaped slaves from nearby plantations, who had fled to the fort seeking asylum.

After the war’s end, a retired Union general sought to enshrine that legacy of learning. With collections from church groups, Civil War veterans, and a choir that toured Europe, Hampton Normal and Agricultural Institute was founded here, by the Chesapeake – a home by the sea.

That story is no doubt familiar to many of you. But it is worth reflecting on why it happened; why so many people went to such trouble to found Hampton and all our Historically Black Colleges and Universities. The founders of these institutions knew, of course, that inequality would persist long into the future. They recognized that barriers in our laws, and in our hearts, wouldn’t vanish overnight.

But they also recognized a larger truth; a distinctly American truth. They recognized that with the right education, those barriers might be overcome and our God-given potential might be fulfilled. They recognized, as Frederick Douglass once put it, that “education…means emancipation.” They recognized that education is how America and its people might fulfill our promise. That recognition, that truth – that an education can fortify us to rise above any barriers, to meet any tests – is reflected, again and again, throughout our history.

In the midst of civil war, we set aside land grants for schools like Hampton to teach farmers and factory-workers the skills of an industrializing nation. At the close of World War II, we made it possible for returning GIs to attend college, building and broadening our great middle class. At the Cold War’s dawn, we set up Area Studies Centers on our campuses to prepare graduates to understand and address the global threats of a nuclear age.

Education, then, is what has always allowed us to meet the challenges of a changing world. And that has never been more true than it is today. You’re graduating in a time of great difficulty for America and the world. You’re entering the job market, in an era of heightened international competition, with an economy that’s still rebounding from the worst crisis since the Great Depression. You’re accepting your degrees as America wages two wars – wars that many in your generation have been fighting.

Meanwhile, you’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t rank all that high on the truth meter. With iPods and iPads; Xboxes and PlayStations; information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment. All of this is not only putting new pressures on you; it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy.

It’s a period of breathtaking change, like few others in our history. We can’t stop these changes, but we can adapt to them. And education is what can allow us to do so. It can fortify you, as it did earlier generations, to meet the tests of your own time.

First and foremost, your education can fortify you against the uncertainties of a 21st century economy. In the 19th century, folks could get by with a few basic skills, whether they learned them in a school like Hampton, or picked them up along the way. For much of the 20th century, a high school diploma was a ticket to a solid middle class life. That is no longer the case.

Jobs today often require at least a bachelor’s degree, and that degree is even more important in tough times like these. In fact, the unemployment rate for folks who’ve never gone to college is over twice as high as it is for folks with a college degree or more.

The good news is, all of you are ahead of the curve. All those checks you wrote to Hampton will pay off. You are in a strong position to outcompete workers around the world. But I don’t have to tell you that too many folks back home aren’t as well prepared. By any number of different yardsticks, African Americans are being outperformed by their white classmates, and so are Hispanic Americans. And students in well-off areas are outperforming students in poorer rural or urban communities, no matter what color their skin.

Globally, it’s not even close. In 8th grade science and math, for example, American students are ranked about 10th overall compared to top-performing countries. African Americans, however, are ranked behind more than twenty nations, lower than nearly every other developed country.

All of us have a responsibility, as Americans, to change this; to offer every child in this country an education that will make them competitive in our knowledge economy. But all of you have a separate responsibility, as well. To be role models for your brothers and sisters. To be mentors in your communities. And, when the time comes, to pass that sense of an education’s value down to your children. To pass down that sense of personal responsibility and self-respect. To pass down the work ethic that made it possible for you to be here today.

So, allowing you to compete in the global economy is the first way your education can prepare you. But it can also prepare you as citizens. With so many voices clamoring for attention on blogs, on cable, on talk radio, it can be difficult, at times, to sift through it all; to know what to believe; to figure out who’s telling the truth and who’s not. Let’s face it, even some of the craziest claims can quickly gain traction. I’ve had some experience with that myself.

Fortunately, you’ll be well positioned to navigate this terrain. Your education has honed your research abilities, sharpened your analytical powers, and given you a context for understanding the world. Those skills will come in handy.

But the goal was always to teach you something more. Over the past four years, you’ve argued both sides of a debate. You’ve read novels and histories that take different cuts at life. You’ve discovered interests you didn’t know you had, and made friends who didn’t grow up the same way you did. And you’ve tried things you’d never done before, including some things I’m sure you wish you hadn’t.

All of it, I hope, has had the effect of opening your minds; of helping you understand what it’s like to walk in someone else’s shoes. But now that your minds have been opened, it’s up to you to keep them that way. And it will be up to you to open minds that remain closed. That, after all, is the elemental test of any democracy: whether people with differing points of view can learn from each other, work with each other, and find a way forward together.

I’d also add one further observation. Just as your education can fortify you, it can also fortify our nation, as a whole. More and more, America’s economic preeminence, our ability to outcompete other countries, will be shaped not just in our boardrooms and on our factory floors, but in our classrooms, our schools, and at universities like Hampton; by how well all of us, and especially us parents, educate our sons and daughters.

What’s at stake is more than our ability to outcompete other nations. It’s our ability to make democracy work in our own nation. Years after he left office, decades after he penned the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson sat down, a few hours’ drive from here, in Monticello, to write a letter to a longtime legislator, urging him to do more on education. Jefferson gave one principal reason – the one, perhaps, he found most compelling. “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free,” he wrote, “it expects what never was and never will be.”

What Jefferson recognized, like the rest of that gifted generation, was that in the long run, their improbable experiment – America – wouldn’t work if its citizens were uninformed, if its citizens were apathetic, if its citizens checked out, and left democracy to those who didn’t have their best interests at heart. It could only work if each of us stayed informed and engaged; if we held our government accountable; if we fulfilled the obligations of citizenship.

The success of their experiment, they understood, depended on the participation of its people – the participation of Americans like all of you. The participation of all those who’ve ever sought to perfect our union. Americans like Dorothy Height.

As you probably know, Dr. Height passed away the other week at the age of 98. Having been on the firing line for every fight from lynching to desegregation to the battle for health care reform, she lived a singular life. But she started out just like you, understanding that to make something of herself, she needed a college degree.

So, she applied to Barnard – and got in. Only, when she showed up, they discovered she wasn’t white like they’d thought. You see, their two slots for African Americans had already been filled. But Dr. Height was not discouraged. She was not deterred. She stood up, straight-backed, and with Barnard’s acceptance letter in hand, marched down to NYU, where she was admitted right away.

Think about that for a moment. A woman, a black woman, in 1929, refusing to be denied her dream of a college degree. Refusing to be denied her rights. Her dignity. Her piece of America’s promise. Refusing to let any barriers of injustice or inequality stand in her way. That refusal to accept a lesser fate; that insistence on a better life is, ultimately, the secret of America’s success.

So, yes, an education can fortify us to meet the tests of our economy, the tests of citizenship, and the tests of our time. But what makes us American is something that can’t be taught – a stubborn insistence on pursuing a dream.

The same insistence that led a band of patriots to overthrow an empire. That fired the passions of union troops to free the slaves and union veterans to found schools like Hampton. That led foot-soldiers the same age as you to brave fire-hoses on the streets of Birmingham and billy clubs on a bridge in Selma. That led generation after generation of Americans to toil away, quietly, without complaint, in the hopes of a better life for their children and grandchildren.

That is what has makes us who we are. A dream of brighter days ahead, a faith in things unseen, a belief that here, in this country, we’re the authors of our own destinies. And it now falls to you, the Class of 2010, to write the next great chapter in America’s story; to meet the tests of your own time; and to take up the ongoing work of fulfilling our founding promise. Thank you, God Bless You, and may God Bless the United States of America.

As Prepared for Delivery–May 9, 2010

Copyright © 2010, Newport News, Va., Daily Press

Related posts

• Remarks by the President on the “Education To Innovate” Campaign (0)
• Remarks by the President on Strengthening America’s Education System (0)
• Obama’s Back to School Speech (0)
• President Obama’s Speech to the NAACP Centennial Convention (0)
• Secretary Arne Duncan Testifies Before the House Education and Labor Committee (0)

Nussbaum begins by warning of a crisis in education, a crisis rooted in the quest for national profit or economic gain (interestingly enough this point is made without reference to the dramatic increase in the rise of for-profit providers of higher education and the concomitant adoption of an outlook predicated on education being a service and students consumers). She writes:

Radical changes are occurring in what democratic societies teach the young, and these changes have not been well thought through. Thirsty for national profit, nations and their systems of education are heedlessly discarding skills that are needed to keep democracies alive. If this trend continues, all over the world we will soon be producing generations of useful machines, rather than complete citizens who can think for themselves, criticize tradition, and understand the significance of another person’s sufferings and achievements. The future of the world’s democracies hangs in the balance.

What is most interesting about this line of argument is its assumption that “citizens who can think for themselves” (what about resident “aliens”?), the “ability” to “criticize tradition” and “understand the significance of another person’s sufferings and achievements”, are all skills. Is thinking a skill? Is empathy a skill?

Examining the Oxford English Dictionary, one will find that the noun skill has two distinct meanings, and I think the difference is quite significant. The first meaning listed is essentially grounded in the notion of reason, or discernment and differentiation (and given as a mental faculty of individuals, whereas now there is evidence that thinking is a social, not simply psychological, phenomenon). The second meaning moves us into the moral realm: “That which is reasonable, proper, right, or just.”

The “business community’s” emphasis on education for the development of skills suggests, at first glance, a set of functional capacities (e.g., STEM) tightly aligned with what finance capital says the market can bear and national security deems worthy (e.g., learning Arabic). Yet, it is clear to me that since the days of the development of civil service exams in China and then in the west, a composite notion of skill has pervaded our thinking, both causing confusion and covering over important developments. This confusion reigns in Nussbaum’s essay and is worth further exploration.

She writes: “Indeed, what we might call the humanistic aspects of science and social science—the imaginative, creative aspect, and the aspect of rigorous critical thought—are also losing ground.”

While the word rigorous is almost as hackneyed and misused as the word accountability (rigorous is of course derived from the notion of being inflexible, as when one dies their body becomes rigid, something I hope most can recognize as not being synonymous with notions like “advanced”), what is particularly troubling is the incessant habit of placing adjectives before words in such a manner as to reveal that the writer does not understand them. So an example is “critical thinking.” I’m just not convinced that thinking is a phenomenon that comes in varieties, such that one type of thinking is “critical” and another type is “uncritical”. I’m serious; if we don’t stop this irrationalism, we’re going to soon be offering undergraduates “uncritical thinking” as a prerequisite for courses in “critical thinking”. This reminds me of proponents of “brain-based learning,” as if we were confused as to the organ largely responsible for learning! I’m going to develop the Institute for Foot-based Learning, following in the footsteps (!) of the peripatetic philosophers of ancient Athens.

So back to the problems of skills-as-values. Anyway, what is significant about the designation of some thinking as critical is that it appears to cross over into a moral or values positions (critical means to render negative judgment), beyond any empirically based analysis of forms or types of thinking. That is to say, the kind of thinking that “critical thinking” targets is thinking that is judgmental, opinionated, and so on, and thus, the notion confuses the value and the form of the process and product of thinking. Nussbaum continues:

Given that economic growth is so eagerly sought by all nations, especially at this time of crisis, too few questions have been posed about the direction of education, and, with it, of the world’s democratic societies. With the rush to profitability in the global market, values precious for the future of democracy are in danger of getting lost.

So here we have an assumed linkage of the above mentioned skills to a set of values, which I don’t think is an accident nor a problem unique to this author’s point of view. She continues in the following paragraph thusly:

The profit motive suggests to many concerned leaders that science and technology are of crucial importance for the future health of their nations. We should have no objection to good scientific and technical education. My concern is that other abilities, equally crucial, are at risk of getting lost in the competitive flurry, abilities crucial to the health of any democracy internally, and to the creation of a world culture capable of tackling the world’s most pressing problems.

Wait! I though we were talking about the skills associated with a liberal-arts education, skills that help foster democratic governance? Yes, ability is commonly referenced by thesauruses as a synonym for skill, but is it? Ability, according the OED, is particularly focused on the notion of suitability relative to a particular purpose, or as the quality making some action possible. So, let me pull what I think is a very important observation from my book:

Sociologists point out that there have always been arrangements for formally recognizing the capacity to perform important social roles and to exercise their associated social status and power… Notice that there are in fact two capacities referenced here. The first is the capacity to perform the role itself (functional competency), and the second capacity is to exercise the role’s associated social status and power (what might be called social competency). Notions of ability, of capacity, are bound up with social roles, for ability must have a place for it to be manifest. This quality or state of being able manifests itself in the “physical, mental, or legal power to perform,” according to Webster’s. Note that ability can signify a power inhering in persons—again functional capacity—or a legal power to do something, or social capacity. It is significant, I think, that the etymology of ability is from the Middle English, suitability. In this regard, standardized test-based assessment is the judgment of worth relative to a structural slot or social position—what is deemed of value and who is deemed of value—a process abstracted as achievement or ability.

It is this dual meaning of skill and ability that must be sorted out. In the same breath, we talk about functional capacities and social capacities. In the present circumstance this leads to, among other things, blaming average individuals for what are in reality structural problems, which are covered over by those relatively few individuals who benefit from these structural arrangements.

And of course, educational institutions have been implicated in this social structuring, and the interesting fact is that “liberal arts” education was reserved for those slotted for positions afforded “social status and power”; as access to education was broadened, and the right to vote extended, more limited forms of liberal education were afforded the “masses.” “Liberal education” was the vision so graciously extended to the “masses” by enlightened bourgeois reformers and while progressive in its day and responsible for many positive developments, it imposed the limits of a bourgeois outlook (e.g., “learning is for its own sake”). It cannot move us into the future. It confounded our understanding of skills, abilities and values, and brought with it the view that education was an appropriate means for defending the ranking of humanity, thus not only distorting our understanding of the origin of extant social inequality, but also distorting the process and outcome of education by tightly aligning its acquisition with social rank.

It is thus my (admittedly underdeveloped) thesis that the current emphasis on “skills” is in fact an assignment of lower social value to a larger section of the population than has been practiced in the recent past; the problem is not that the “skills” necessary for democracy are not being “taught”, but rather that what little democracy existed prior to the current push for “accountability” is being eliminated by the reduction of education to “skills development” under the hoax of economic development.

The political arrangement that housed “liberal arts” as an educational form no longer holds sway. Put in a different manner, the aim of the emphasis on skills is not — at the macro level — in the main economically driven, but a political necessity given the extreme concentration of power and complete failure of the current political system to provide people even a modicum of say over their government and the direction of society. In vogue notions of skills are confused with notions of values, and are thus quite complex. The notion of “critical thinking” is not a banner behind which educators should readily line up in the dire hope that by adopting the business-talk of skills somehow a broad and enlightened form of education can be defended and supported.

Related posts

• Clifford Adelman’s “White Noise of Accountability” (0)
• Realism and Social Change (0)
• Are Tests Measures of Test Taking Ability? (0)
• The Questions of Education Reform Are Really Questions of Who Decides (2)
• On the Public/Private Distinction and Political Power (0)

“We have a performance funding scheme now — it’s called ‘pay to enroll,’ ” he said. “One of the simplest things we can do is to reimburse for courses completed rather than courses attempted” by their students, he said. Added Stan Jones, former commissioner of higher education in Indiana and now president of the National Consortium on College Completion: “If we could make that change, counting courses at the end of the semester rather than the beginning, that would have powerful implications. Everybody would drag out their [list of] courses and say, ‘Where are we having problems?’ ” (It was acknowledged that such an approach could create perverse incentives of its own, by discouraging institutions from enrolling academically underprepared students who might be unlikely to succeed — a potential risk of the entire emphasis on “completion” that is increasingly in vogue.)

Of course, it could also encourage institutions to pressure faculty to ”ensure“ students complete courses: passing students who have in fact not met course requirements will become more common.

Related posts

• Clifford Adelman’s “White Noise of Accountability” (0)
• Accountability Double-Standards (0)

What would have been unimaginable even ten years ago is now taking place: the U.S. educational system is poised to break with one of its politically unique and defining features: state control over public education.

Because education is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, article X applies: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

It is clear from the above comments, and many others like them, that there is consciousness that these standards (whatever name is pragmatically assigned) are part and parcel of larger changes to governing arrangements more generally. Supporters of the “common standards” have belittled objections citing article X. The compromise of state’s rights during the founding of the U.S. is now seen as a block by the most powerful reformers. Below I offer a heuristic for contending with the push for national standards.

The Nature and Function of Standards

Among other things, standards in any sphere of social life play an important role in establishing, maintaining or even expanding the power of an authority, its interests, and outlook. To determine standards is a claim to have authority over a sphere of social life. Struggles over standards are often expressions of broader political rivalries, either between sections of a ruling class and/or between the social classes. Disputes over standards are one means by which conflicting claims (of classes or factions) can be sorted out. Finally, the act of establishing a standard not only serves to empower the actor, it also stands as an effort by that actor to legitimate future claims to govern over the domain of which the standard is applied. Finally, the failure to establish a standard, the failure to secure compliance with a standard, signifies failure of the authority the standard represents.

The Public Good

If nothing else, the notion of public good is that of the common interest, and is defined through contrast with narrow and sectarian interests. Bourgeois political thinkers in the West understood that capitalism gave rise to factions in society because of the inevitability of inequality as a result of the private pursuit of property. While rejecting the principal of socialized property that is the logical extension of the public good, bourgeois thinkers nonetheless understood that factions unchecked lead to unstable forms of government and ultimately civil war. But they rejected tyranny of one faction over all others as a resolution to this problem. Thus was established in the U.S. a system of power sharing between states that make up the union and stood as means for forming the national political will.

Standards Set by Narrow Political Factions Cannot Serve the Public Good

The standard setting now taking place necessarily reflects the aims, objectives, and outlook of those who set them, and serves their interests. The public and rank and file educators, and their concerns, have been excluded from setting these standards. How can the public good be served if the people who are the object of the standards are not key agents of their creation?

What aims do the standards being proposed reflect? Global competition is often given as a justification, and it should be readily evident that this is not an aim derived from the concrete conditions or desires of the majority in the United States but rather it is an aim derived from the preoccupation of a tiny minority of financial and industrial interests. Workers in the United States have in no way benefited from competing with other workers in other countries, as their material and social conditions continue to deteriorate while the biggest financial, commercial and industrial giants make record profits — often at the expense of workers whom are deemed to “out compete” “America”.

Far from “offering the best possible education” to all Americans, such an approach lowers the level of education and is even worse than job training. It is an outlook that uses education to place venture capital at the center and the only legitimate arbiter of the progress of public schools. Bill Gates, Eli Broad, the Ford Foundation and all the Wall Street players do not have the right to decide for the public the future of education!

Without serious discussion by the public and among the public of the aim and purpose of education, no meaningful standards that serve the public good can be developed or adjudicated.

Related posts

• Detroit Free Press: MEAP may be replaced by national online test (0)
• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part II – The Political Significance of Assessment Governance (0)
• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part 1 – Danger, Will Robinson, Irrational Discourse Ahead! (0)
• The Questions of Education Reform Are Really Questions of Who Decides (2)
• Teacher-blogger Dina Strasser on “Common Core” Standards (0)

Jack Gerson and other reporters (as indicated) – September 25, 2009

Well over 5,000 students, staff and faculty packed the University of California Berkeley’s Sproul Plaza on September 24, 2009, to protest sweeping layoffs, deep cuts to academic and research programs, steep tuition hikes, and the privatization of public education in California.

More than 5,000 students, teachers and other staff protested against cuts in higher education and privatization at the University of California’s Berkeley campus on September 24, 2009. Above, some of the crowd at Sproul Plaza, Berkeley, during the day of protests. Substance photo by Jack Gerson.On this, the first day of fall semester classes, over a thousand faculty members and more than 1,100 graduate teaching assistants staged a walkout, coinciding with a one-day strike by University Professional and Technical workers.

Reports compiled by Chicago’s Labor Beat (see button on the right for their Home Page):

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:51:58 -0700

Subject: Reports from around California (and the world) – The UC Walkout

From: Eric

On Thursday, September 24, 2009, protests shook all 10 campuses of the University of California. Prompted by a walk-out letter signed by over 1,200 faculty, and a strike by 12,000 union researchers, students and labor allies organized a massive day of action to re-prioritize the budget of the UC system and push back against privatization. UC Berkeley, in particular, saw thousands attend rallies and marches reminiscent of previous generations, while activists at 3 other UCs occupied campus buildings (one of which is still ongoing). Politicians all over the state were forced to respond, with UC admins blaming state legislators and vis-versa. Schwarzenegger dismissed the protesters as a “screaming special interest group,” while Gavin Newsom insinuated his support of the walkout, injecting the UC crisis into the 2010 Governor’s race. Seeing how this was the very first day of class for most UCs, it looks to be a very long school year.. especially if you’re on the wrong side of the bullhorn.

Here’s a collection up of some of the reports from today. There’s many more – please feel free to comment.

UC Wide

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/24/california-university-berkeley-budget-protest

http://www.sacbee.com/108/story/2204365.html

http://studentactivism.net/2009/09/24/reports-from-the-uc-walkout/

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/25/MNVU19SBEV.DTL

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/09/20/18622513.php

http://socialistworker.org/2009/09/25/thousands-join-uc-walkout

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=7030684

http://extras.mercurynews.com/slideshows/news/2009/09/0925walkout/

http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=0z&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=uc+walkout&oq=uc

background info: http://labornotes.org/node/2459

UC BERKELEY

* Huge rally. Police estimate 5,000. March through streets of Berkeley, sit-down civil disobedience in front of campus, shutting down three main streets.

* All day picketing

* Over a half-dozen teach-ins (see titles: http://www.saveuc.org/teachout-sched.pdf)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/24/MN2Q19S3FS.DTL

http://www.dailycal.org/article/106776/walkouts_vary_across_uc_campuses

http://www.insidebayarea.com/twitter/ci_13411072

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2009-09-24/article/33824

http://twitpic.com/iyy8d

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APuKukByoQA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pERb1G0-UA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_w0CToZjCc

UC DAVIS

* All day picketing

* Teamsters electricians and others honored the strike and went home

* Rally/March with estimates from several hundred to over a thousand + bikes w/ sound systems

* Brief occupation of admin building

http://twitpic.com/iz6i9

http://www.news10.net/video/default.aspx?aid=82555

http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-news-ucbudget0924,0,6713606.story

UC IRVINE

* Faculty-Student Improv Show

* Rally (w/ estimates between 500 and 1000) outside admin building

http://www.upte.org/photogallery/index.html#original/05

http://twitpic.com/iz10h

UC LOS ANGELES

* Noon Rally (LA Times estimate 700 people)

* March to Chancellor’s office

* Occupation of Chancellor’s office results in forcing Chancellor to set a meeting.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ucprotests25-2009sep25,0,3895472.story

http://media.dailybruin.com/dailybruin/img/2009/sep/24/walkoutcrowd_-_derek_liu.jpg

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2009/09/24/14/CaliforniaUniversity5.standalone.prod_affiliate.4.jpg

UC SANTA CRUZ

* City buses (UTU), UPS (Teamsters) and construction crews refused to cross picket lines.

* All Day Picketing

* Noon Rally with 300+ people

* 3:30pm second rally and march

* Ongoing occupation of building in the center of campus, with rally outside http://occupyCA.wordpress.com and http://wewanteverything.wordpress.com/

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/09/24/18623088.php

http://www.flickr.com/photos/melissarachelblack/sets/72157622449721648/

http://www.mercurynews.com/centralcoast/ci_13412921?nclick_check=1

UC SAN DIEGO

* All day picketing, joined by UNITE-HERE Local 30 members who’ve been boycotting the Manchester Grand Hyatt over similar issues.

* Rally w/ about 350 attendees

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjPJO2zwmkM

UC SAN FRANCISCO

* All day picketing

* Rally w/ about ~75 people

UC SANTA BARBARA

Rally with ~400 people

http://www.independent.com/news/2009/sep/24/protesters-target-uc-regents/

http://twitpic.com/iyz2p

UC RIVERSIDE

Rally (w/ widely ranging estimates – from 150 to 500 to 1000) followed by a teach-in.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/09/25/qt/walkouts_across_u_of_california

http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_13414178

UC MERCED

A small rally, but notable since Merced is the newest and smallest UC!

http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/61292127.html

LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LAB (UC-managed)

UPTE Strike/Picketing/Protest

http://cbs5.com/local/UC.walkout.strike.2.1206109.html

TAIWAN

UC Education abroad students assembled and took a group picture.

http://tinyurl.com/yecgbxa

“The words we are holding up say, “Protect the UC, prevent fee increases” in traditional Chinese characters. We took the picture at the front gate of National Taiwan University, where we are all studying and have students from all the UC campuses except for San Francisco and Merced (we even have a student from CSU East Bay and a student from SF State).”

-

SOLIDARITY:

UNIV. of ARIZONA:

Rally w/ ~100 people against cuts and costs in the UA system, staged on 9/24 in solidarity w/ UC.

http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=11195684

SF STATE:

~75 students held a rally against cuts, costs, and the elimination of hundreds of classes in the Cal State system, and in solidarity w/ UC.

SF City College:

Rally against budget cuts and in solidarity with other educational institutions.

UNIV. of MICHIGAN:

Members of Michigan GEO, AFT Local #3550 took a group picture, with signs in solidarity.

http://tinyurl.com/y8ho329

-

QUOTES OF THE DAY:

“Walkout, Rally Hailed as Rebirth of UC Activism” (as if it ever died – Front Page story from the Berkeley Daily Planet)

“I’ve been here since 1972, and I’ve never seen anything like it.” – George Lakoff

“For most of UC, today was THE FIRST DAY OF CLASSES, so there was essentially no time to organize. That makes #UCwalkout even more amazing.” – @studentactivism

“Faculty, students and unions from the University of California’s 10 campuses including its two most prestigious, UCLA and Berkeley, joined forces in what was the biggest student protest for more than a generation… The scale of the protests has come as a shock to state authorities.” – The Guardian (UK)

“being president of the University of California is like being manager of a cemetery” – UC President Mark Yudof. (The whole interview is shockingly appalling.) See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/magazine/27fob-q4-t.html?_r=1

http://www.ucfacultywalkout.com 

Related posts

• Buffalo News endorses flawed system of teacher compensation (0)
• Broad Foundation: Facts on the Wrecking of Public Education (0)
• Hess on Federal Jargon & the Jargon of Venture Capitalism and Wall Street Dictate (0)
• Preparing for Tests, Learning…? (0)
• Labor Beat Chicago Video Exposes Duncan’s Record (0)

Today represents a milestone, though, for a potential breakthrough that could have major implications for higher education. The Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association will release common standards for core curriculums in mathematics and reading and writing that, because of a confluence of events, could create a set of widely embraced national (but not federal) standards for what high school students need to know to be “college ready” or to have the skills to enter the work force.

So, what is the difference between “Federal” and “National” Standards? I suggest that federal is used here to point to administrative oversight and power, and as such, “federal standards” as a phrase is avoided because it points to worries that federal education policy increasingly violates state rights, as the provision and administration of education is given, due to its absence in the U.S. constitution, as a state right by article X .

Supporters of the “common standards” have belittled objections citing article X. This suggests how uncomfortable “reformers” are with current constitutional arrangements — i.e., that the compromise of state’s rights during the founding of the U.S. is now seen as a key block by the most powerful reformers. It also suggests what “National Standards” means in terms of political justification. That is, “national” here refers to an interest, in the same way that “national security” refers to an interest that is not limited to an administrative structure (federal, state or local) but rather to the promotion and protection of an interest. Examination of the interests of those driving the “core standards” and the general absence of “real” educators in the formation of the standards (despite efforts to make the process appear “inclusive”) is key to understanding the emphasis on “national” vs. “federal” in discussions of “core standards.” It also points to the role of standard-setting in altering governing arrangements.

As a starting point for thinking more about the political significance of “National Standards”, I offer the following from Witold Kula’s 1986 book Measures and Men:

The right to determine measures is an attribute of authority in all advanced societies. It is the prerogative of the ruler to make measures mandatory and to retain the custody of the standards […] The controlling authority, moreover, seeks to unify all measures within its territory and claim the right to punish metrological transgressions. (p. 18)

He further notes that the “frequent struggles centered about metrological competence of the constituted power are but a manifestation of the rivalry between various organs of authority aspiring to control measures in order to bolster their standing,” emphasizing that “attempts to control measures [standards] have been an ever-present element in the struggle for power between interested representatives of the privileged class” (18-19).

Related posts

• Detroit Free Press: MEAP may be replaced by national online test (0)
• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part II – The Political Significance of Assessment Governance (0)
• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part 1 – Danger, Will Robinson, Irrational Discourse Ahead! (0)
• The Questions of Education Reform Are Really Questions of Who Decides (2)
• “National Standards” and the Public Good (0)

[...]

Today represents a milestone, though, for a potential breakthrough that could have major implications for higher education. The Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association will release common standards for core curriculums in mathematics and reading and writing that, because of a confluence of events, could create a set of widely embraced national (but not federal) standards for what high school students need to know to be “college ready” or to have the skills to enter the work force.

[...]

“This is the first time the K-12 people have stood up and said, ‘College readiness is our goal,’ ” says Kati Haycock, president of Education Trust, which advocates for low-income students. “Higher ed people ought not to underestimate how big a deal this is.”

[...]

That effort has received a big push from another source: the Obama administration. Although direct involvement by the federal government could be a death knell for many school-based initiatives, given the pushback from local school boards against involvement in curriculum setting, the administration has lent its weight to the project with its favored tool: money.

As part of the economic stimulus legislation that Congress enacted last winter, Education Secretary Arne Duncan agreed to set aside $350 million (as part of the administration’s Race to the Top fund) for states to develop new tests and other measures tied to the Common Standards initiative. More fundamentally, the rules for states to participate in the $4.35 billion Race to the Top fund (which is designed to stimulate innovation among high schools) require that states join the Common Standards effort to tap into the federal money.

The tight timeline for distributing the federal stimulus money has sped up the process for implementing the core standards initiative. The second draft of the standards (which update earlier drafts for mathematics and reading/writing and were developed by panels of educators, including some university professors) will, upon their release today, be reviewed by panels quickly convened by the American Council on Education based on advice from the Modern Language Association and the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences.

From the Comments:

Interestingly, the board that developed the draft national standards in mathematics, for example, includes only one person who has had any K-12 classroom experience (not current), and is heavy with people from Achieve, ACT and the College Board. They wrote the draft on a very tight timeline with almost no input from outside their echo chamber. I suspect that the “standards” will not have much relevance to the actual intellectual requirements of entry-level college study, but that they will provide a bonanza opportunity for the testing companies.

Related posts

• Detroit Free Press: MEAP may be replaced by national online test (0)
• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part II – The Political Significance of Assessment Governance (0)
• Race to the Top Assessment Program: Part 1 – Danger, Will Robinson, Irrational Discourse Ahead! (0)
• The Questions of Education Reform Are Really Questions of Who Decides (2)
• “National Standards” and the Public Good (0)

I was just informed backstage that Ralph and John both are 1965 graduates of MIT — same class. And so I’m not sure this is the perfectly prescribed scientific method, but they’re sort of a control group — (laughter) — who ages faster: The President’s Science Advisor or the President of the Academy? (Laughter.) And we’ll check in in a couple of years. But it is wonderful to see them.

To all of you, to my Cabinet Secretaries and team who are here, thank you. It is a great privilege to address the distinguished members of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as the leaders of the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine who’ve gathered here this morning.

And I’d like to begin today with a story of a previous visitor who also addressed this august body. In April of 1921, Albert Einstein visited the United States for the first time. And his international credibility was growing as scientists around the world began to understand and accept the vast implications of his theories of special and general relativity. And he attended this annual meeting, and after sitting through a series of long speeches by others, he reportedly said, “I have just got a new theory of eternity.” (Laughter.) So I will do my best to heed this cautionary tale. (Laughter.)

The very founding of this institution stands as a testament to the restless curiosity, the boundless hope so essential not just to the scientific enterprise, but to this experiment we call America.

A few months after a devastating defeat at Fredericksburg, before Gettysburg would be won, before Richmond would fall, before the fate of the Union would be at all certain, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law an act creating the National Academy of Sciences — in the midst of civil war.

Lincoln refused to accept that our nation’s sole purpose was mere survival. He created this academy, founded the land grant colleges, and began the work of the transcontinental railroad, believing that we must add — and I quote — “the fuel of interest to the fire of genius in the discovery… of new and useful things.”

This is America’s story. Even in the hardest times, against the toughest odds, we’ve never given in to pessimism; we’ve never surrendered our fates to chance; we have endured; we have worked hard; we sought out new frontiers.

Today, of course, we face more complex challenges than we have ever faced before: a medical system that holds the promise of unlocking new cures and treatments — attached to a health care system that holds the potential for bankruptcy to families and businesses; a system of energy that powers our economy, but simultaneously endangers our planet; threats to our security that seek to exploit the very interconnectedness and openness so essential to our prosperity; and challenges in a global marketplace which links the derivative trader on Wall Street to the homeowner on Main Street, the office worker in America to the factory worker in China — a marketplace in which we all share in opportunity, but also in crisis.

At such a difficult moment, there are those who say we cannot afford to invest in science, that support for research is somehow a luxury at moments defined by necessities. I fundamentally disagree. Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been before. (Applause.)

And if there was ever a day that reminded us of our shared stake in science and research, it’s today. We are closely monitoring the emerging cases of swine flu in the United States. And this is obviously a cause for concern and requires a heightened state of alert. But it’s not a cause for alarm. The Department of Health and Human Services has declared a public health emergency as a precautionary tool to ensure that we have the resources we need at our disposal to respond quickly and effectively. And I’m getting regular updates on the situation from the responsible agencies. And the Department of Health and Human Services as well as the Centers for Disease Control will be offering regular updates to the American people. And Secretary Napolitano will be offering regular updates to the American people, as well, so that they know what steps are being taken and what steps they may need to take.

But one thing is clear — our capacity to deal with a public health challenge of this sort rests heavily on the work of our scientific and medical community. And this is one more example of why we can’t allow our nation to fall behind.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly what’s happened.

Federal funding in the physical sciences as a portion of our gross domestic product has fallen by nearly half over the past quarter century. Time and again we’ve allowed the research and experimentation tax credit, which helps businesses grow and innovate, to lapse.

Our schools continue to trail other developed countries and, in some cases, developing countries. Our students are outperformed in math and science by their peers in Singapore, Japan, England, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, and Korea, among others. Another assessment shows American 15-year-olds ranked 25th in math and 21st in science when compared to nations around the world. And we have watched as scientific integrity has been undermined and scientific research politicized in an effort to advance predetermined ideological agendas.

We know that our country is better than this. A half century ago, this nation made a commitment to lead the world in scientific and technological innovation; to invest in education, in research, in engineering; to set a goal of reaching space and engaging every citizen in that historic mission. That was the high water mark of America’s investment in research and development. And since then our investments have steadily declined as a share of our national income. As a result, other countries are now beginning to pull ahead in the pursuit of this generation’s great discoveries.

I believe it is not in our character, the American character, to follow. It’s our character to lead. And it is time for us to lead once again. So I’m here today to set this goal: We will devote more than 3 percent of our GDP to research and development. We will not just meet, but we will exceed the level achieved at the height of the space race, through policies that invest in basic and applied research, create new incentives for private innovation, promote breakthroughs in energy and medicine, and improve education in math and science. (Applause.)

This represents the largest commitment to scientific research and innovation in American history.

Just think what this will allow us to accomplish: solar cells as cheap as paint; green buildings that produce all the energy they consume; learning software as effective as a personal tutor; prosthetics so advanced that you could play the piano again; an expansion of the frontiers of human knowledge about ourselves and world the around us. We can do this.

The pursuit of discovery half a century ago fueled our prosperity and our success as a nation in the half century that followed. The commitment I am making today will fuel our success for another 50 years. That’s how we will ensure that our children and their children will look back on this generation’s work as that which defined the progress and delivered the prosperity of the 21st century.

This work begins with a historic commitment to basic science and applied research, from the labs of renowned universities to the proving grounds of innovative companies.

Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and with the support of Congress, my administration is already providing the largest single boost to investment in basic research in American history. That’s already happened.

This is important right now, as public and private colleges and universities across the country reckon with shrinking endowments and tightening budgets. But this is also incredibly important for our future. As Vannevar Bush, who served as scientific advisor to President Franklin Roosevelt, famously said: “Basic scientific research is scientific capital.”

The fact is an investigation into a particular physical, chemical, or biological process might not pay off for a year, or a decade, or at all. And when it does, the rewards are often broadly shared, enjoyed by those who bore its costs but also by those who did not.

And that’s why the private sector generally under-invests in basic science, and why the public sector must invest in this kind of research — because while the risks may be large, so are the rewards for our economy and our society.

No one can predict what new applications will be born of basic research: new treatments in our hospitals, or new sources of efficient energy; new building materials; new kinds of crops more resistant to heat and to drought.

It was basic research in the photoelectric field — in the photoelectric effect that would one day lead to solar panels. It was basic research in physics that would eventually produce the CAT scan. The calculations of today’s GPS satellites are based on the equations that Einstein put to paper more than a century ago.

In addition to the investments in the Recovery Act, the budget I’ve proposed — and versions have now passed both the House and the Senate — builds on the historic investments in research contained in the recovery plan.

So we double the budget of key agencies, including the National Science Foundation, a primary source of funding for academic research; and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which supports a wide range of pursuits from improving health information technology to measuring carbon pollution, from — from testing “smart grid” designs to developing advanced manufacturing processes.

And my budget doubles funding for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, which builds and operates accelerators, colliders, supercomputers, high-energy light sources, and facilities for making nano-materials — because we know that a nation’s potential for scientific discovery is defined by the tools that it makes available to its researchers.

But the renewed commitment of our nation will not be driven by government investment alone. It’s a commitment that extends from the laboratory to the marketplace. And that’s why my budget makes the research and experimentation tax credit permanent. This is a tax credit that returns two dollars to the economy for every dollar we spend, by helping companies afford the often high costs of developing new ideas, new technologies, and new products. Yet at times we’ve allowed it to lapse or only renewed it year to year. I’ve heard this time and again from entrepreneurs across this country: By making this credit permanent we make it possible for businesses to plan the kinds of projects that create jobs and economic growth.

Second, in no area will innovation be more important than in the development of new technologies to produce, use, and save energy — which is why my administration has made an unprecedented commitment to developing a 21st century clean energy economy, and why we put a scientist in charge of the Department of Energy. (Applause.)

Our future on this planet depends on our willingness to address the challenge posed by carbon pollution. And our future as a nation depends upon our willingness to embrace this challenge as an opportunity to lead the world in pursuit of new discovery.

When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik a little more than a half century ago, Americans were stunned. The Russians had beaten us to space. And we had to make a choice: We could accept defeat or we could accept the challenge. And as always, we chose to accept the challenge.

President Eisenhower signed legislation to create NASA and to invest in science and math education, from grade school to graduate school. And just a few years later, a month after his address to the 1961 Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, President Kennedy boldly declared before a joint session of Congress that the United States would send a man to the moon and return him safely to the Earth.

The scientific community rallied behind this goal and set about achieving it. And it would not only lead to those first steps on the moon; it would lead to giant leaps in our understanding here at home. That Apollo program produced technologies that have improved kidney dialysis and water purification systems; sensors to test for hazardous gasses; energy-saving building materials; fire-resistant fabrics used by firefighters and soldiers. More broadly, the enormous investment in that era –- in science and technology, in education and research funding –- produced a great outpouring of curiosity and creativity, the benefits of which have been incalculable. There are those of you in this audience who became scientists because of that commitment. We have to replicate that.

There will be no single Sputnik moment for this generation’s challenges to break our dependence on fossil fuels. In many ways, this makes the challenge even tougher to solve –- and makes it all the more important to keep our eyes fixed on the work ahead.

But energy is our great project, this generation’s great project. And that’s why I’ve set a goal for our nation that we will reduce our carbon pollution by more than 80 percent by 2050. And that is why — (applause) — and that is why I’m pursuing, in concert with Congress, the policies that will help meet us — help us meet this goal.

My recovery plan provides the incentives to double our nation’s capacity to generate renewable energy over the next few years — extending the production tax credit, providing loan guarantees and offering grants to spur investment. Just take one example: Federally funded research and development has dropped the cost of solar panels by tenfold over the last three decades. Our renewed efforts will ensure that solar and other clean energy technologies will be competitive.

My budget includes $150 billion over 10 years to invest in sources of renewable energy as well as energy efficiency. It supports efforts at NASA, recommended as a priority by the National Research Council, to develop new space-based capabilities to help us better understand our changing climate.

And today, I’m also announcing that for the first time, we are funding an initiative — recommended by this organization — called the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA-E. (Applause.)

This is based, not surprisingly, on DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which was created during the Eisenhower administration in response to Sputnik. It has been charged throughout its history with conducting high-risk, high-reward research. And the precursor to the Internet, known as ARPANET, stealth technology, the Global Positioning System all owe a debt to the work of DARPA.

So ARPA-E seeks to do the same kind of high-risk, high-reward research. My administration will pursue, as well, comprehensive legislation to place a market-based cap on carbon emissions. We will make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy. We will put in place the resources so that scientists can focus on this critical area. And I am confident that we will find a wellspring of creativity just waiting to be tapped by researchers in this room and entrepreneurs across our country. We can solve this problem. (Applause.)

Now, the nation that leads the world in 21st century clean energy will be the nation that leads in the 21st century global economy. I believe America can and must be that nation. But in order to lead in the global economy and to ensure that our businesses can grow and innovate, and our families can thrive, we’re also going to have to address the shortcomings of our health care system.

The Recovery Act will support the long overdue step of computerizing America’s medical records, to reduce the duplication, waste and errors that cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

But it’s important to note, these records also hold the potential of offering patients the chance to be more active participants in the prevention and treatment of their diseases. We must maintain patient control over these records and respect their privacy. At the same time, we have the opportunity to offer billions and billions of anonymous data points to medical researchers who may find in this information evidence that can help us better understand disease.

History also teaches us the greatest advances in medicine have come from scientific breakthroughs, whether the discovery of antibiotics, or improved public health practices, vaccines for smallpox and polio and many other infectious diseases, antiretroviral drugs that can return AIDS patients to productive lives, pills that can control certain types of blood cancers, so many others.

Because of recent progress –- not just in biology, genetics and medicine, but also in physics, chemistry, computer science, and engineering –- we have the potential to make enormous progress against diseases in the coming decades. And that’s why my administration is committed to increasing funding for the National Institutes of Health, including $6 billion to support cancer research — part of a sustained, multi-year plan to double cancer research in our country. (Applause.)

Next, we are restoring science to its rightful place. On March 9th, I signed an executive memorandum with a clear message: Under my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over. (Applause.) Our progress as a nation –- and our values as a nation –- are rooted in free and open inquiry. To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy. It is contrary to our way of life. (Applause.)

That’s why I’ve charged John Holdren and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy with leading a new effort to ensure that federal policies are based on the best and most unbiased scientific information. I want to be sure that facts are driving scientific decisions — and not the other way around. (Laughter.)

As part of this effort, we’ve already launched a web site that allows individuals to not only make recommendations to achieve this goal, but to collaborate on those recommendations. It’s a small step, but one that’s creating a more transparent, participatory and democratic government.

We also need to engage the scientific community directly in the work of public policy. And that’s why, today, I am announcing the appointment — we are filling out the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, known as PCAST, and I intend to work with them closely. Our co-chairs have already been introduced — Dr. Varmus and Dr. Lander along with John. And this council represents leaders from many scientific disciplines who will bring a diversity of experiences and views. And I will charge PCAST with advising me about national strategies to nurture and sustain a culture of scientific innovation.

In addition to John — sorry, the — I just noticed that I jumped the gun here — go ahead and move it up. (Laughter.) I’d already — I’d already introduced all you guys.

In biomedicine, just to give you an example of what PCAST can do, we can harness the historic convergence between life sciences and physical sciences that’s underway today; undertaking public projects — in the spirit of the Human Genome Project — to create data and capabilities that fuel discoveries in tens of thousands of laboratories; and identifying and overcoming scientific and bureaucratic barriers to rapidly translating scientific breakthroughs into diagnostics and therapeutics that serve patients.

In environmental science, it will require strengthening our weather forecasting, our Earth observation from space, the management of our nation’s land, water and forests, and the stewardship of our coastal zones and ocean fisheries.

We also need to work with our friends around the world. Science, technology and innovation proceed more rapidly and more cost-effectively when insights, costs and risks are shared; and so many of the challenges that science and technology will help us meet are global in character. This is true of our dependence on oil, the consequences of climate change, the threat of epidemic disease, and the spread of nuclear weapons.

And that’s why my administration is ramping up participation in — and our commitment to — international science and technology cooperation across the many areas where it is clearly in our interest to do so. In fact, this week, my administration is gathering the leaders of the world’s major economies to begin the work of addressing our common energy challenges together.

Fifth, since we know that the progress and prosperity of future generations will depend on what we do now to educate the next generation, today I’m announcing a renewed commitment to education in mathematics and science. (Applause.) This is something I care deeply about. Through this commitment, American students will move from the middle of the top — from the middle to the top of the pack in science and math over the next decade — for we know that the nation that out-educates us today will out-compete us tomorrow. And I don’t intend to have us out-educated.

We can’t start soon enough. We know that the quality of math and science teachers is the most influential single factor in determining whether a student will succeed or fail in these subjects. Yet in high school more than 20 percent of students in math and more than 60 percent of students in chemistry and physics are taught by teachers without expertise in these fields. And this problem is only going to get worse. There is a projected shortfall of more than 280,000 math and science teachers across the country by 2015.

And that’s why I’m announcing today that states making strong commitments and progress in math and science education will be eligible to compete later this fall for additional funds under the Secretary of Education’s $5 billion Race to the Top program.

And I’m challenging states to dramatically improve achievement in math and science by raising standards, modernizing science labs, upgrading curriculum, and forging partnerships to improve the use of science and technology in our classrooms. (Applause.) I’m challenging states, as well, to enhance teacher preparation and training, and to attract new and qualified math and science teachers to better engage students and reinvigorate those subjects in our schools.

And in this endeavor, we will work to support inventive approaches. Let’s create systems that retain and reward effective teachers, and let’s create new pathways for experienced professionals to go into the classroom. There are, right now, chemists who could teach chemistry, physicists who could teach physics, statisticians who could teach mathematics. But we need to create a way to bring the expertise and the enthusiasm of these folks –- folks like you –- into the classroom.

There are states, for example, doing innovative work. I’m pleased to announce that Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania will lead an effort with the National Governors Association to increase the number of states that are making science, technology, engineering and mathematics education a top priority. Six states are currently participating in the initiative, including Pennsylvania, which has launched an effective program to ensure that the state has the skilled workforce in place to draw the jobs of the 21st century. And I want every state, all 50 states, to participate.

But as you know, our work does not end with a high school diploma. For decades, we led the world in educational attainment, and as a consequence we led the world in economic growth. The G.I. Bill, for example, helps send a generation to college. But in this new economy, we’ve come to trail other nations in graduation rates, in educational achievement, and in the production of scientists and engineers.

That’s why my administration has set a goal that will greatly enhance our ability to compete for the high-wage, high-tech jobs of the future –- and to foster the next generation of scientists and engineers. In the next decade –- by 2020 –- America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. That is a goal that we are going to set. And we’ve provided tax credits and grants to make a college education more affordable.

My budget also triples the number of National Science Foundation graduate research fellowships. (Applause.) This program was created as part of the space race five decades ago. In the decades since, it’s remained largely the same size –- even as the numbers of students who seek these fellowships has skyrocketed. We ought to be supporting these young people who are pursuing scientific careers, not putting obstacles in their path.

So this is how we will lead the world in new discoveries in this new century. But I think all of you understand it will take far more than the work of government. It will take all of us. It will take all of you. And so today I want to challenge you to use your love and knowledge of science to spark the same sense of wonder and excitement in a new generation.

America’s young people will rise to the challenge if given the opportunity –- if called upon to join a cause larger than themselves. We’ve got evidence. You know, the average age in NASA’s mission control during the Apollo 17 mission was just 26. I know that young people today are just as ready to tackle the grand challenges of this century.

So I want to persuade you to spend time in the classroom, talking and showing young people what it is that your work can mean, and what it means to you. I want to encourage you to participate in programs to allow students to get a degree in science fields and a teaching certificate at the same time. I want us all to think about new and creative ways to engage young people in science and engineering, whether it’s science festivals, robotics competitions, fairs that encourage young people to create and build and invent — to be makers of things, not just consumers of things.

I want you to know that I’m going to be working alongside you. I’m going to participate in a public awareness and outreach campaign to encourage students to consider careers in science and mathematics and engineering — because our future depends on it.

And the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation will be launching a joint initiative to inspire tens of thousands of American students to pursue these very same careers, particularly in clean energy.

It will support an educational campaign to capture the imagination of young people who can help us meet the energy challenge, and will create research opportunities for undergraduates and educational opportunities for women and minorities who too often have been underrepresented in scientific and technological fields, but are no less capable of inventing the solutions that will help us grow our economy and save our planet. (Applause.)

And it will support fellowships and interdisciplinary graduate programs and partnerships between academic institutions and innovative companies to prepare a generation of Americans to meet this generational challenge.

For we must always remember that somewhere in America there’s an entrepreneur seeking a loan to start a business that could transform an industry — but she hasn’t secured it yet. There’s a researcher with an idea for an experiment that might offer a new cancer treatment -– but he hasn’t found the funding yet. There’s a child with an inquisitive mind staring up at the night sky. And maybe she has the potential to change our world –- but she doesn’t know it yet.

As you know, scientific discovery takes far more than the occasional flash of brilliance –- as important as that can be. Usually, it takes time and hard work and patience; it takes training; it requires the support of a nation. But it holds a promise like no other area of human endeavor.

In 1968, a year defined by loss and conflict and tumult, Apollo 8 carried into space the first human beings ever to slip beyond Earth’s gravity, and the ship would circle the moon 10 times before returning home. But on its fourth orbit, the capsule rotated and for the first time Earth became visible through the windows.

Bill Anders, one of the astronauts aboard Apollo 8, scrambled for a camera, and he took a photo that showed the Earth coming up over the moon’s horizon. It was the first ever taken from so distant a vantage point, and it soon became known as “Earthrise.”

Anders would say that the moment forever changed him, to see our world — this pale blue sphere — without borders, without divisions, at once so tranquil and beautiful and alone.

“We came all this way to explore the moon,” he said, “and the most important thing is that we discovered the Earth.”

Yes, scientific innovation offers us a chance to achieve prosperity. It has offered us benefits that have improved our health and our lives — improvements we take too easily for granted. But it gives us something more. At root, science forces us to reckon with the truth as best as we can ascertain it.

And some truths fill us with awe. Others force us to question long-held views. Science can’t answer every question, and indeed, it seems at times the more we plumb the mysteries of the physical world, the more humble we must be. Science cannot supplant our ethics or our values, our principles or our faith. But science can inform those things and help put those values — these moral sentiments, that faith — can put those things to work — to feed a child, or to heal the sick, to be good stewards of this Earth.

We are reminded that with each new discovery and the new power it brings comes new responsibility; that the fragility, the sheer specialness of life requires us to move past our differences and to address our common problems, to endure and continue humanity’s strivings for a better world.

As President Kennedy said when he addressed the National Academy of Sciences more than 45 years ago: “The challenge, in short, may be our salvation.”

Thank you all for all your past, present, and future discoveries. (Applause.) May God bless you. God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

April 27, 2009

Related posts

• Obama’s speech at Hampton University commencement (0)
• Remarks by the President on the “Education To Innovate” Campaign (0)
• Remarks by the President on Strengthening America’s Education System (0)
• Obama’s Back to School Speech (0)
• President Obama’s Speech to the NAACP Centennial Convention (0)

As state tax revenues plummet, some lawmakers and higher-education leaders are once again looking at loosening the bonds between state governments and public colleges to save money and give colleges the freedom to bolster their bottom lines in new ways.

In light of the recent bailout of Wall Street, I wonder what kind of brain can propose more “market” as any sort of “cure”. In fact, privatization of the type discussed in the articles creates more problems, increasing inequality being only one.

But a key problem originates in the further blurring of the line between public and private, and in particular, the assumption that private entities can easily and naturally serve the public ends. Found in the article is the assumption that the purpose of education is unrelated to how society organizes its provision.

Those who seek to bring “market discipline” to k12 or higher education, argue, as the Frederick Hess (2002) does in his Progressive Policy Institute brief “Making Sense of the ‘Public’ in Public Education,” that:

Defenders of the status quo are often able to successfully attack choice-based reforms as “anti-public education” because Americans by and large believe that the public has some legitimate responsibility to ensure all children receive an adequate and appropriate education. Even such noted public critics as libertarians John Stuart Mill and Milton Friedman have always conceded there is some component of public good to education, and have argued for state funding and/or monitoring of educational mastery to ensure that all children are adequately served. However, this agreement poses a new challenge by demanding that we first determine what constitutes an adequate education and then consider, separately, how it ought to be provided. It is important to recognize that, in multiple sectors, legislators routinely craft policies intended to address public needs, but then rely upon a variety of public agencies and private firms to execute these policies. In such cases, we generally accept that a public service is being rendered regardless of the agent providing the service. For instance, we typically consider community bus services as public even if operated by a private vendor. Such reflection suggests the poverty of current conversations about what it is that makes public schools public. Simple-minded proclamations on the topic have encouraged would-be reformers and their critics to squabble over the symbolic banner of “public education” while shortchanging the public’s substantive concerns. (p. 3-4)

Kelderman continues:

Operating more like private institutions not only would be a buffer from the recession and the volatility of state budgets, some college officials argue, but also may well be vital to the survival of many public colleges.

Insisting that the governance and manner of securing funds for education will somehow not impact “quality” we read: “Those that seek to thrive in the future must earn money from a variety of sources and continually cut costs in ways that don’t harm the quality of instruction, says Philip J. Hanlon, vice provost for academic and budgetary affairs at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, which gets just 7 percent, or $320-million, of its revenue from the state.” Instead of demanding that public funds be used for the public good and that funding for public higher education be increased, “leaders” offer the view that since things have degenerated to the point where much of the revenue for higher education comes from other sources, why not remove the limits of public oversight?

Some factual claims cited in the article:

“Public research universities in Colorado, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Vermont are so reliant on tuition that students are paying, on average, for more than 70 percent of the cost of their education, compared with a national average of 51 percent, according to the Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and Accountability, a nonprofit group that studies how colleges spend their money. Students at private research universities pay, on average, nearly 56 percent of their educational costs, the project reported.”

After the 2001-2 recession, public universities in Colorado, Massachusetts, and Virginia exchanged operational freedom for reductions in public aid.

“While no public college is likely to free itself entirely from fiscal ties to its state, many of the nation’s largest public institutions, like Michigan, have evolved to operate nearly like private colleges,” Kelderman observes.

According to Kelderman, “the trend toward privatization has been widely discussed by public-college officials since at least the early 1990s, especially during nationwide recessions when state revenues have plummeted.” During that time “spending on health care and prison costs has climbed rapidly.” Even as public funding for public higher education has increased “in real dollars, it has diminished as a proportion of most state budgets.”

Now, with states facing budget shortfalls totaling as much as $350-billion in the current and coming fiscal years, lawmakers are looking hard for ways to trim spending on higher education. Even the federal stimulus package, which includes nearly $40-billion to offset cuts to education, has not done much to ease the pressure, which has prompted some lawmakers in Colorado and Michigan to suggest cutting flagship universities loose from state budgets entirely. While those ideas have not gained much traction, they reignited discussions about whether it was desirable, or even possible, for large universities to maintain their public status.

[...]

At the same time, some state lawmakers question why they should still underwrite the university at all as it raises more private dollars and increases tuition. A nine-member legislative panel [in Michigan] created last year to suggest major budget cuts included a recommendation to turn the university into a private institution, although some panelists thought that was not a realistic option. Similarly, a Colorado lawmaker proposed this year that the four public research universities there would perform much better if they were off the state dole. But that proposal, too, died quickly.

Later on, Kelderman writes: “While privatization has occurred in an ad hoc fashion in most of the country, a few states have moved purposely down that path, with mixed results.” He cites the example of Virginia, which initiated a program in 2005 that “gives its public colleges varying degrees of fiscal and administrative autonomy in exchange for agreeing to hold down tuition for resident students and to meet benchmarks in areas such as retention and graduation rates.”

It seems worth studying the trends pointed to in this article in relation to Obama’s plan for financing student aid. See his recent speech.

Related posts

• Alan Singer: Charter Schools Don’t Do Miracles (0)
• Broad Foundation: Facts on the Wrecking of Public Education (0)
• Hess on Federal Jargon & the Jargon of Venture Capitalism and Wall Street Dictate (0)
• Remarks by the President on the “Education To Innovate” Campaign (0)
• Thousand Demonstrate Against California Education Cuts (0)