This thread is intended to discuss in detail the education priorities of the Obama Admnsitration...

<H2 class=vitstoryheadline>Arne Duncan: Educating our way to a better economy</H2>[/size]

<H5 class=vitstorydate>04:48 PM CDT on Monday, March 23, 2009
</H5>

[size="-1"]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...n1.284b17c.html

President Barack Obama recently challenged all Americans to overcome the stale debates that have paralyzed progress on education so that we can offer every child in this country the chance to out-compete any worker worldwide. That is a central mission of the budget that President Obama is submitting to Congress.

Also Online What's The Big Story? Find out at dallasnews.com/opinion

Blog: Opinion

This budget makes a substantial down payment on our education agenda – aimed at preparing Americans from the cradle up through a career. That means raising the quality of early childhood programs; ending state caps on the number of allowable charter schools; rewarding good teachers and removing bad ones; adding learning time to the school year; and putting the dream of a college degree within reach for anyone who wants one.

It is an ambitious agenda and enacting it will require both resources and political will. We have the resources. But do we have the will?

I was heartened by the reaction to the president's speech. Union leaders vowed to have an open mind on issues like performance pay, higher standards and charters, asking only that reform be done "with them, not to them." Officials at every level of government are also broadly supportive.

They are also asking the right questions: how can we ensure that taxpayer dollars make a meaningful and lasting difference in the classroom? How can we make sure these funds are spent effectively?

The answer is simple: We are demanding absolute transparency for every tax dollar spent and we will use the power of the bully pulpit and the power of the purse to reward what is working and to reform what is not.

At a minimum, the Recovery Act will help keep teachers teaching and students learning. But if all we do is perpetuate the status quo, we will miss this historic opportunity. That's why states that are accepting funding from the Recovery Act must commit to making four reforms. They must:

•Adopt internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that better prepare students for college and a career. Today, some states intentionally lower standards, essentially lying to kids by telling them they are ready for college when they are not.

•Build high-quality data systems that track a student's academic career, making it possible to tell which teachers, programs and schools are effective. Better data can foster a shared understanding among educators and parents about what is necessary to improve a child's education, creating, as President Obama said, "a culture of accountability."

•Recruit more high-quality educators to underperforming schools as well as to subjects like math and science. If recruiting teachers and principals to the schools and subjects that need them most means offering them extra pay, we should provide it.

•Support effective strategies to turn around underperforming schools. Closing failing schools and replacing staff is tough medicine, but the alternative is unacceptable.

To receive subsequent funding from the Recovery Act, states must develop a detailed plan to advance these reforms. States with the most comprehensive and cutting-edge reform plans can also win a share of a $5 billion "Race to the Top" fund – a portion of which will go directly to districts and non-profits that are achieving results.

Obama called on Americans to stop fighting with each other about education and start fighting for our kids. That means not only passing this budget but also doing all we can – as parents, teachers, principals, administrators, and national leaders – to help restore America's global leadership in education. That is how we will not only make America more competitive in the 21st century – but ensure that all our sons and daughters have a chance to fulfill their God-given potential and reach for the American dream.

Arne Duncan is the U.S. secretary of education.

Secretary Arne Duncan Speaks at the National Science Teachers Association Conference

FOR RELEASE:
March 20, 2009Speaker sometimes deviates from text.Good morning. Thank you so much for inviting me.

As you can imagine, it's been a pretty eventful couple of weeks—from starting a new job—to moving my family—to passing a massive stimulus bill that includes over $100 billion in new funding for education.

And now—just when I thought I could catch my breath and get really focused on the president's bold education agenda—the NCAA basketball tournament is starting.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is a historic opportunity to lay the groundwork for a generation of education reform and I want to talk about that for a few minutes before discussing science education.

This historic opportunity comes at a time of economic and education crisis in our country. Families today are hurting—losing jobs, scaling back, and facing an uncertain future.

Many of our schools are also struggling—losing our young people to the streets or graduating students who are not ready for college or work. And with states cutting education budgets, our schools and our children are placed even more at risk.

But, even amid these crises, I believe there exists a feeling of hope. I'm hopeful because I believe we are experiencing something I often talk about now, which is the "perfect storm for reform."

It starts with what I call the "Obama Effect." It's the combination of having a president and a first lady whose extraordinary lives reflect the immense opportunity that hard work and education can bring. Together, they have made learning cool and hip. They are excellent role models not just for our African-American and minority children, but for all children who aspire to make their lives, and the world, better.

The perfect storm also includes the great leadership on Capitol Hill—on both sides of the aisle—from Lamar Alexander and Senator Michael Enzi to Ted Kennedy and George Miller.

It includes the fact that we have proven strategies that work in the classroom thanks to all of your hard work and the work of many others both in and outside of education.

And, finally, it includes the new money we have available now under the economic stimulus package—more than $100 billion in new funding for education over the next two years.

Before this bill was signed into law, we were facing a potentially devastating situation: thousands of education jobs lost, vast increases in class sizes, and massive cuts to state and district education programs and capital improvement projects.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides swift aid to states that they can use to avoid teacher layoffs and other education program cuts, modernize school buildings, and provide programs that protect the needs of special education and disadvantaged students.

As you know, the primary goal of the stimulus is to save jobs—but the larger goal is to drive a set of reforms that we believe will transform public education in America.

The four issues are: higher standards, data systems, turning around underperforming schools, and teacher quality.

First, we are encouraging states to adopt rigorous standards that are internationally benchmarked. A nation without true career- and college-ready standards is lying to its children. A nation with low academic standards is telling students and parents that our kids are doing well—when, in fact, they are not.

A nation that does not benchmark its standards against the highest international standards is crippling our children in the competition for jobs.

That competition is not just coming from the next street or even the next state. It's coming from India and China, Singapore and Korea.

Second, we want to see states building robust data systems that allow districts to better track the growth of individual students. We know that raising standards alone will not make a difference unless teachers and principals are provided with the information they need to make sure that students are learning.

Third, we want failing schools to be turned around. We need innovative, new instructional models. One of the first areas where we can foster innovation is the amount of time our students spend learning. Other top-performing countries do not take two months off in the summer. They do not dismiss students at two in the afternoon. Instead, they spend 30 or 40 more days per year in school and offer safe, constructive activities that keep kids learning. We must expand quality after-school programs and rethink the school day to incorporate more time—whether that's by extending hours or offering more summer school.

Fourth, we are looking to incent states to invest heavily in teacher and principal quality initiatives that both elevate the teaching profession and help recruit and retain the best and brightest. Talent matters tremendously. Teachers are the most important factor for student success. We must find ways to get great teachers into underserved schools in our cities and in our rural areas—and I am wide open to ideas.

The law requires states to commit to these reforms in order to get the first round of funding—and to begin moving toward them for the second round of funding.

For those states that move fastest and furthest—we have a $5 billion "Race to the Top" fund—and we will use that money to incent a handful of states that are really pushing the envelope.

Now you're probably wondering just how much of this $100 billion will go to science education.

If I told you that right now, you probably wouldn't listen to the rest of my speech—so let's hold the thought for a moment.

Let me begin by saying that science education is central to our broader effort to restore American leadership in education worldwide, and I want to start with a little story.

Last week, I had my first opportunity to testify on Capitol Hill about the president's proposed education budget.

As you know, this is both an opportunity for me to testify, but it's also an opportunity for elected officials to speak.

And several of the members of the House Budget Committee spoke about science education. In fact, they reached all the way back to Sputnik to affirm their commitment to science in the classroom.

On the one hand, it's good to remember where the modern era of science education began—but on the other hand, it reminded me that we have much further to go.

America won the space race but, in many ways, American education lost the science race.

A decade ago, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) benchmarking study showed that our best districts could compete with anyone in the world, but our worst districts—which, of course, were in low-income communities—were on a par with third-world countries.

This kind of extreme inequity in education is not unique to science, but it has enormous repercussions in the workforce where science-based industries are desperate for skilled workers.

Studies show that interest in science is strong in high school but it drops dramatically at the college level.

We need to change that. We need more people in engineering. We need them for the healthcare and the green energy industries. We need them in technology.

And we need them in the classroom. Too many middle school students are being taught by a generalist. We've known about this for years, but we haven't done enough to address it.

Part of the problem is the labor pool just isn't there. Too much of the talent is going into other areas and that's especially true among women—who are underrepresented in several fields of science.

Another part of the problem is that math and science teachers leave the profession in greater numbers than others—because there are better job opportunities out there. Not everyone is as dedicated to teaching as all of you—and I want to thank you for that.

But we need to respond to the market by paying more to teachers in high-need subjects like science and math.

I'm a big believer in differential pay. I want to reward excellence by paying teachers and principals who do a great job in the classroom.

I want to reward them for going into struggling school districts. That's where the challenge is—if you're going to take on a tough job, you should be rewarded.

I want to incent schools to attract and support great talent in the STEM subjects.

In his education address last week, the president called for a lot of things:

• Lifting charter caps;
• Expanding performance pay;
• Longer school days and a longer school year;
• More parental responsibility; and
• And greater access to college.

That's a very aggressive agenda. Some say it's too aggressive—but I say we don't have a choice.

I'm just grateful that we have a president who is willing to fight for schools. Given that we are facing two wars and the worst economy since the Great Depression, it's remarkable how much he keeps coming back to education.

He understands that we need to educate our way to a better economy. He understands that the nation that out-teaches us today will out-compete us tomorrow.

He understands that a nation not only needs its poets and scholars to give us words and wisdom, but also its inventors and engineers to design new cell phones, rebuild the levees of New Orleans, and find new sources of energy and new treatments for disease.

Moreover, he is a president who will not allow scientific research to be held hostage to a political agenda. Whether it's global warming, evolution or stem cell research, science will be honored, respected, and supported by this administration.

The president sent a strong signal when he picked a Noble-Prize winning physicist to be our energy secretary—and I plan to work closely with him and with all of the other key agencies from NASA to the EPA to the National Science Foundation—to launch a new era of science education in America.

But, the challenge of getting more young people into science is not something we can successfully implement in Washington. That falls to you and your colleagues in classrooms all across America.

You need to challenge yourselves and each other to move the curriculum beyond dinosaurs and volcanoes—and I know that many of you already have—but we need to take the best ideas to scale in tough inner-city districts like this one—as well as rural areas that cannot find qualified teachers in every subject.

You need to make inquiry-based science relevant to kids—stimulate their curiosity—connect it with their lives. Together we need to change the national dialog about science—to prepare our kids to be honestly critical and technically competent.

Science is all about questioning assumptions, testing theories, and analyzing facts. These are basic skills that prepare kids not just for the lab—but also for life. We're doing kids a disservice if we don't teach them how to ask tough and challenging questions.

In Chicago, we began one of the most comprehensive science initiatives in the country—upgrading curriculum, training teachers, and expanding programs. We need to do that everywhere and I welcome your ideas and input for how we can get that done.

Above all, I just want to thank you for your commitment to education and to children. We don't say thank you nearly enough to the men and women who do the hard work every day of teaching children.

So, on behalf of the president and his wife, Michelle, as well as the vice president and his wife, Jill (who is a teacher), I want to say "thank you" for all that you do. America depends on you. Our future depends on you.

As I mentioned before, you probably want to know how much off the $100 billion will be going into science.

I can't put a hard number on it—but I can promise you that many of the teaching jobs we will save with stimulus dollars will be in science labs all across America.

I can promise that some of that money will help modernize those science labs—although those decisions will be made at the local and district level.

There is also a pot of $650 million for education technology grants.

I am also confident that dollars from other funding streams—Title I, special education, and school improvement—will find their way into science classrooms.

Lastly, there is the $5 billion Race to the Top fund, which will reward the school districts doing the most to advance reforms—and that includes science education.

So the money supply is there. Now we need to drive the demand. We need to get kids and parents engaged, and make our case forcefully that science education is critical to America's future.

We have the leadership in the White House, we have the support on Capitol Hill, and now we have the funding.

Now we need you—your ideas, your energy, and your leadership—to build on the great tradition of inquiry, research, and theory that produced Edison and Einstein to create a new generation of scientists and make the world smarter and healthier.

America's economic security tomorrow is directly tied to the quality of education we provide today. This is our task. This is our challenge. Now let's get to work.

Thank you.
http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/03/03202009.html

I think this is where you want to look -- now this is the FY 2009 DOE Performance Plan...so its not Obama's plan - its the Bush plan...but that can serve as a starting point...

http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2009plan/program.html

And then you can examine the Obama funding priorities...

And oftentimes one can see priorities from where the budget request lines up...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy201...of_Eduction.pdf

Duncan's article provides a good starting point for a discussion of Education. It states goals at a very abstract and general level...

The last time I checked, the Federal government provides less than 10% of the funding for
elementary and secondary education, with the rest comming from state sales taxes and local
community property taxes...Educational services are organized and administered at the
Community level. The US Constitution makes no direct provisions for granting either the
congress or President any direct authority over education.

It seems to me that our first task is to understand how the system works and then make improvement hypotheses...

Where can I find a good primer on international benchmarks?

I've been Googleing Summary of International Educational Benchmarks...Lots of references
relating to various pieces of the pie but no good summary located yet...

Educational needs should vary depending on the economy. What are benchmarks based on?

Benchmarks denotes a sub-set of the broader concept of Educational Assessments. Assessments
include both normative testing (I.Q. and Achievement Tests) or criterion-based assessment (Behavioral Rating Scale). Educational Assessments provide a bases for improving educational systems. Students are compared with other students in schools, schools are compared with other
schools within states, states are compared with states within Nations and Nations are compared with
other Nations. A good starting point for information about Educational Assessment see http://www.ed.gov/programs/naep/index.html

Comparing state to states and Nations to nations is only good to an extent. There should be a component that compares differing economic needs as well.

Benchmarks should be regional. This is what we should be avoiding.

Would a place to start be to examine the different internatonal test results...

This would at least provide the test --- what is tested --- and the comparative results of those tests...

Here are some UN standards...

Standards and norms in educationhttp://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.p...ECTION=201.html

This is a collection of UNESCO’s standard-setting and normative instruments in education, legal as well as non-legal. It also includes support documents, plus other relevant United Nations documents pertaining to the right to education as well as other key education themes.

• Definitions of legal terms

• General introduction to UNESCO’s standard-setting instruments

• UNESCO's Constitution
  The Constitution is the fundamental framework to which the 191 member states of UNESCO have committed themselves. It is the basis of UNESCO’s work in setting norms and standards through instruments, publications and awareness-raising.

By Theme

[b]Discrimination in Education and the Right to Education [/b]

UNESCO's Official Texts and Legal Documents
Support Documents
Other Relevant UN Documents

[b]Education for All Coordination[/b]

UNESCO's Official Texts and Legal Documents
Support Documents
Other Relevant UN Documents

[b]Education for Girls and Women[/b]

Support Documents
Other Relevant UN Documents

[b]Higher Education[/b]

UNESCO's Official Texts and Legal Documents
Support Documents
Other Relevant UN Documents

[b]Inclusive Education[/b]

UNESCO's Offical Texts and Legal Documents
Support Documents
Other Relevant UN Documents

[b]Literacy and Adult Education[/b]

UNESCO's Official Texts and Legal Documents
Support Documents

[b]Peace and Human Rights[/b]

UNESCO's Official Texts and Legal Documents
Support Documents
Other Relevant UN Documents

[b]Teacher Education[/b]

UNESCO’s Official Texts and Legal Documents
Support Documents
Other Relevant UN Documents

[b]Technical and Vocational Education and Training[/b]

UNESCO's Official Texts and Legal Documents
Support Documents
Other Relevant UN Documents

Special Rapporteur on the right to education

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/educa...r/standards.htm

[b]International Standards [/b]
Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

“Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory.”

“Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children”



Article 13 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

“Primary education shall be compulsory and available free for all.”

“The States parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents ... to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the State and to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

No part of this article shall be construed so as to interfere with the liberty of individuals and bodies to establish and direct educational institutions, ...”



Article 18 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

“The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents ... to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.”



Articles 28, 29 Convention on the Rights of the Convention on the Rights of the Child:

“States Parties recognize the of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular:

(a) Make primary education compulsory and available free for all”…

“No part of [articles 28 and 29] shall be construed so as to interfere with the liberty of individuals and bodies to establish and direct educational institutions…”;



Article 10 Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against women;



UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education

[/color]

European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Protocol 1, Article 2:

“No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”;



[color="#4488cc"]Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights General Comment N.11 (on article 14 plans of action for primary education)

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights General Comment N.13 (on article 13 the right to education).

Taz, you aredoing a great job... I don't know why you put my name on this thread...

I haven't reviewed the material you put up yet so I just have a couple of general comments.

As a nation, it is obvious that we are not going to tackle the government structure under which
Education operates on in the near future...There we need to identify some general principles
that can be applied from Washington...

One such principle that a few states are moving to is to pass laws that set a minimum ration
for expenditures in the class room to total expenditures...

My second suggestion is that some of these wind fall funds that are flooding the system be
used to set up a permanent coordinating office in the Organization of State Governors
to promote Excellence in Education. I think we will see more of the Federal budget for Improving
education utilizing Block Grants to the States--thus the need for mechanisms to coordinate
local grass-roots effortsto improve Community-based Education...

One would think that such benchmarks would be based on the optimal minimum skill sets/knowledge that the international community -- whether its the UN or some internationally based educational association has developed -- that children should have...to participate effectively in the global marketplace.

Granted, the same skill sets for Africa, Europe, etc. might not be the same...

By economy do you mean the level of industrialization?

First world, second world, third world?

http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/thir...d_countries.htm

The term "First World" refers to so called developed, capitalist, industrial countries, roughly, a bloc of countries aligned with the United States after World War II, with more or less common political and economic interests: North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia.

Countries of the "First World"

"Second World" refers to the former communist-socialist, industrial states, (formerly the Eastern bloc, the territory and sphere of influence of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republic) today: Russia, Eastern Europe (e.g., Poland) and some of the Turk States (e.g., Kazakhstan) as well as China.

Countries of the "Second World"



"Third World" are all the other countries, today often used to roughly describe the developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The term Third World includes as well capitalist (e.g., Venezuela) and communist (e.g., North Korea) countries, as very rich (e.g., Saudi Arabia) and very poor (e.g., Mali) countries.
Below

Countries of the "Third World"
Third World Countries classified by various indices: their Political Rights and Civil Liberties, the Gross National Income (GNI) and Poverty of countries, the Human Development of countries, and the Freedom of Information within a country.


The term "Fourth World" first came into use in 1974 with the publication of Shuswap Chief George Manuel's: The fourth world : an Indian reality (amazon link to the book), the term refers to nations (cultural entities, ethnic groups) of indigenous peoples living within or across state boundaries (nation states).

see Native American Indians

I guess it has to be one or the other..regional or by economy...but making it by both would I think create too many options....IMHO...

I think that pressing the concept of Community-based Education removes the need for making
this kind of classification--if not, perhaps bill will explain...

No. By economy I mean what primarily keeps any particular region self-sustaining.

Each region has different needs and different strengths. The United States is moved from a manufacturing economy to a creative economy. We've priced ourselves out of the manual labor market. We can't compete with other manufacturing economies by manufacturing existing products. We can only compete by creating newer and better products. We need to import physical products and export information products.

I agree with this, in a broad general sense...I didn' understand how you were using Region...
I would say export information-based products to avoid confusing what you are talking about
with the more limited category of Information Technology...

Yes. Information-based products and information-based services.

The levels of industrialization may have an effect on what type of economy a particular region has. But I think cultural and socioeconomic factors are equally if not more important in determining the type of economy.

I have put almost all of my ideas on this topic in GOPguy's thread in the online cafe. How can I duplicate them here?

You can add your quotes by either clicking on the "+ quote" button and then clicking on "add reply" here, or you can click on "reply" as if you are replying to your quote and copy/paste them here.

But isn't that just another way for characterizing the level of industrialization...

Bill -- can't you just say "yes" once when I make a statement...

The indutstrialization within the US is moving from manufacturing based industrialization to creative based industrialization...where the main industry is creativity -- and ideas -- rather than products...

After all, industrialization is a modernization process...similar to what has been happening in Japan...

And its an easy way to classify the world -- providing an instant frame of reference...whereas your "economy" suggestion is really the same thing just using different wording...but making the same point...



Of course, you will disagree with this because only you can be right...

It just pains you to agree with any point I make...doesn't it?

I think this is an interesting article...regarding internatonal standards in education...some of the pitfalls that go with it...regarding the difficulty to measure it...

I think that some of these pitfalls can be erased if one develops international standards based upon the level of industrialization/economic characteristics that bill and I have discussed...

Too often, a one size fits all approach has been attempted, when as this article notes...it is bound to fail -- when it is used not just nationwide, but globally...

Measuring and Managing Performance in Education
by Jenny Ozga, February 2003 ---
http://www.ces.ed.ac.uk/PDF%20Files/Brief027.pdf

Policy-makers in Scotland are using performance management and measurement in a number of ways, in particular, as part of their efforts
to raise pupil attainment and improve teacher performance. This Briefing looks at some of the assumptions that underpin the current approach to
performance management and measurement. It considers issues about the reliability of these measurements, the appropriateness of using
targets and indicators to measure and manage the performance of pupils and schools, and the likely impact on pupils and teachers.

1. Performance management has become the key instrument used by policy-makers to improve
the education system, to raise levels of attainment and to increase the accountability of teachers.

2. Performance management uses indicators such as pupil test scores to rank pupils, schools and
counties and to generate Performance Targets that are then are used to manage performance.

3. There is a danger that quantitative indicators of performance that can easily be measured and
ranked eg pupils’ examination performance, are given greater significance by policy-makers
than other, less easily measured, aspects of education.

4. The ranking of educational performance of different countries may risk reducing the capacity
of national systems to design the most appropriate curriculum and approaches for their students.

5. Scotland’s approach to performance management has attempted to bring quantitative and
qualitative indicators together, notably in school self-evaluation. This approach is continued in
respect of the new National Priorities, but quantitative indicators may still become dominant.

6. Quantitative measurements of pupil and school performance currently in use by policy-makers
are not sufficiently sophisticated to produce an accurate picture of teaching and learning in
Scottish schools, and may over-simplify or distort a complex picture.

7. Current performance management practices may reduce real learning in Scottish schools and
may most adversely affect those pupils already at risk of educational failure. But performance
management has the potential to contribute to social inclusion if appropriate indicators are
developed that help identify need and support appropriate interventions.

No.

Levels of industrialization is linear. I'm talking non-linear.

I'm not disagreeing with this because "only I can be right". But Of course you can't disagree without making snide inflammatory comments.

Economy is not the same thing as "levels of industrialization." It's more like "type of industrialization." Levels implies that progression takes the same course every time and that some levels are superior to others. I'm not even disagreeing that levels of industrialization exist. I'm disagreeing that we are talking about the same thing.

There you go expecting all or none again. You are too hung up on who is making the argument to know which parts of the argument are worth agreeing with.

I never had a problem with your levels of industrialization. It's just that I only saw it as part of the equation, not the whole. It's oversimplified.

No, then why did you answer "no" to my earnest question on the issue...

"It's oversimplified" -- now who is pushing who's buttons...

Its just a matter of perception bill --- that is all I am talking about...

You could have answered my response saying...industrialization is a component of the economics...I am talking about...but it is not the sole factor...

Instead to my question you replied "No"... and then you proceeded to explain to how industrialization was indeed an element in the economic calculus being discussed...

We don't always have to disagree...it may just be the tone of some of our responses that helps engender that disagreement...and I am equally guilty...

Bill - we spar back and forth how am I supposed to know when a friendly jab is going to be taken as a snide comment or what it was intended as a friendly jab...

Now, I would accept types of industriliazation as a substitute for "levels"...

BUt I was not using levels in the context you suggest -- I was using it with regard to modernization...society's - nation's modernize in different ways...in so doing they engage in various levels/types of industrialization...in fashioning international standards it would be useful IMHO to tie those standards to the level/type of industrialization the nation is engaged in...to determne which educational needs are essential to helping the society/nation to flourish...

My caveat would be that if we are to use such factors as a means to measure educational performance as well as set standards for promoting effective simbiosis between societal/national needs and the educational dimension...the standards cannot differ too much...otherwise the international standards will become too provincial and lose their global perspective...

And how can you say we are not talking about the same thing when with rla you freely use the term industrialization as equal or slightly less important than cultural and socioeconomic factors?

Here you guys go again...

At the risk of jumping in where angels fear to tread I'll add my two cents. We need to make things in this country again. Yes we still do but not anywhere near as much as we need to. I don't care whose Ox is gored we have to revitalize the manufacturing base HERE. Yes IT Technology is here to stay and education needs to meet that need, but software engineering is being outsourced too so the problem is not to simply switch to teaching IT and Software writing to a new generation. We Boomers are not dead yet and even if we were there are too many people in America to look only to some "white collar" or whatever you want to call the so-called "safe" jobs which were never safe. People still need to be able to work with their hands so to speak and make a living TODAY and TOMMOROW and one way is to MANAGE our trade policies.

If this economic storm has a silver lining it may be that we can no longer justify (as if we ever really could) allowing such a huge trade deficit because we were presumably "big enough and strong enough" to ship the blue collar work to China or India or Africa to support a developing world. We should still help where we can where there is dire need but it should not be an excuse to gutt our own economic base. We all know a strong middle class is essential to a strong economy and to a viable republic. Besides the above was really a smokescreen to cover the drive to lower wages and cut labor costs and here is ultimately where that "philosophy" (if you can call it that) led us. An "economic philosophy" has to WORK for the vast majority or it is bogus.

Bottom line; People need jobs NOW and Infrastructure Projects can only go so far. The same with Green Jobs. We need a solid manufacturing base consisting of Auto and Airplane manufacture as well as Appliance manufacture and we should be instituting policies to encourage, revitalize and PROTECT (yes protect) enough of those jobs to cause demand to re-surge across the board.

Just my opinion.

Your question was if it was the same thing. The answer to that question was "no, it's not the same thing." Had you asked if the economy included levels of industrialization, I may have said "yes."

TROU - as always your input is appreciated...but I do not know how we can instantly reform our educational system to make the products we used to make...when the labor is so much cheaper overseas...

Economically speaking it just is not feasible...

But I think bill has hit on one aspect -- that the focus our industrialization has shifted from manufacturing to creativity...and making better and smarter products...

Now, I think Obama is smartly seeking to develop renewable energy technologies --- and with stem cell research increasingi the opportunity to develop technology there...but even these approaches while they will employ some people -- direct job growth is probably not going to come from education any time soon unless the money goes into transition and training...for persons already in the workforce who have been displaced...

"Levels of Industrialization" sounds too much like every country should be on the same linear track of progression. This is part of what lead Neocons to adopt the Thomas Barnett philosophy that we were going to have to modernize the "less modern" nations if we don't want them to become our enemies in The Pentagon's New Map. This is also what lead to the Neoliberal concept of "nation building."

My nonlinear understanding has more to do with symbiotic relationships between nations. We shouldn't assume that there is one track of industrialization with multiple levels. We should assume that there are many directions industrialization can take with various levels in each. And it's the diversity between those directions that make the modern world interdependent.

With all due respect Taz, it better be "feasible" or we are toast. Cheaper labor overseas is no excuse. There is or should be a "price-tag" to sell in our huge market, and this market's own "feasibility" as a market is at stake. Our businesses must not be forced to compete with countries whose labor and safety and child and criminal "labor laws" are out of the nineteenth century unless you want us all to return to the world of Bob Crachett and Ebineezer. To avoid that there must be a "price-floor" for products salable in the U.S. Market and if I may say so (eventually) in the World Market as well. I mean by a "price-floor" a minimum price at which a commodity or service is commercially available at, which supports a lifestyle prosperous enough to buy the product without using credit too much. What that "Price-Floor" is for a particular commodity I do not pretend to know but it has to be there to avoid cut-throat competition and manufacturing down to a price which affects not just the product's quality, but the "quality of life".

And this is not "pie in the sky" Taz but it is or should be demanded by the vast majority of citizens in a nation. It is they who represent the majority of votes and the demand - without which no economy or nation is sustainable in any form you or I would want to live in.

I agree with the price floor.

It shouldn't just be based on cost of manufacturing to the company. It should be based on cost to humanity and the environment. And the money made from higher prices should be spent on maintaining and enforcing global regulations for a better quality of life for everyone, not just the customers of the products.

I agree, and before anyone says this is "out-dated" thinking I'll say that WE the vast majority in a Democratic Republic should decide what "out-dated" thinking is and is not. I don't care how many "economic experts" someone lines up to say we can't do it. The reality of a sustainable middle class lifestyle trumps all their theories and I will add it is much more "feasible" to my mind to ship them all off on a slow boat to China! (and pay the tariff THEY charge on "junk" imports)

Just my opinion.

Livyjr and I have been having a lot of fun on his thread on the evolution of the internet,
trying to hatch out some common definitions concerning the economy and related ideas. You
guys are invited to join in...

I was in that thread early on, but lost focus and interest in the demonization of "politics" and what seems to be a failure to acknowledge that the internet is just another medium of communication.

Did I say that they should be on the same linear track? If I did, that was not what I meant. I meant that the level or type of industrialization should help to provide a foundation for what types of educational needs their people would have...to complement the economic demands their society was facing...

And I was actually just asking you whether your economy definition was speaking to the issue of industrialization...which I perhaps clumsily inserted the "levels of" statement to be a part of...but I think we were speaking of the same thing...

The bottom line is that education is necessary to help a society/nation/region of nations/international community to address its needs...

Those needs are social (including cultural and environmental factors), political and economic...

Our traditional structure has advanced an American-centric system of education...which indeed as you suggest is aimed at fulfilling our educational needs...but I think many of us would agree that the present system is out-dated and the we need a new model...a model that does not just focus on American internal needs but also the external need of participating in a global economic and political environment.

BUt how do you answer my concern that if you have too much diversity in the types of industrialization than it is likely impossible to develop international standards for education which is what heart was talking about?

It sounds a lot like socialism to me creating artificial price floors set not by the market but by some arbitrary system. It seems like you are talking instead of a price ceiling...or maximum price...that it is available..an affordable price...

How is that floor met?

Government subsidies? Tariffs?

It seems as we are in the thick of globalization and you are advancing a wildly protectionist them on a thread which is directed toward addressing the Obama Adminstration's education program.

Maybe it's not possible to have international standards. And even if it's possible, it may not be wise.

We should be trying to outdo ourselves at what we are good at doing, not trying to outdo other countries at what we are bad at doing. Now if some American once to become the best mathematician in the world, as long as our system gives that American access to the best math lessons in the world, we've done as much as we could.

I guess I can agree with that somewhat - that the best way for our citizens to compete in the global market is not necessarily doing what other nations are doing...but fulfilling our own needs...

However, I thought that heart made a good suggestion that in establishing a curriculum it might be valuable to examine what some of the nations who are producing some of the most competitive graduates in the global economy to see what they are doing...

AND if there were areas like mathematics, science, communications, etc. where there might be overlap -- that setting international standards to determine where we stand with regard to other nations...might be useful...

I am not poo pooing the notion of standards, whether National or International...I do believe that getting bogged down on this issue--whether at the local level or the national level is letting the tail wag the dog...

This reminds me of an incident many years ago when I was selected to serve on a regional
accredidation commission Site visit. I was assigned the section of the report dealing with Educational
Philosophy so I sat down with the Principal and offered him the opening of, "Let's talk about your
philoslphy of education...He got this scared look on his face and started searching frantically through
all his desk drawers and finally said, "We used to have one but I don't know what happened to it."

rla -- I was not laughing at you -- I was laughing at the response from the principal regarding his education philosophy...

Its actually a little sad - that these are the people charged with administering education to our children...

I knew you wern't and yes, its more than a little sad...

The thing that's going on right now in my area is all these superintendents are having a lot of meeting to decide how they will spend the extra cash wind fall from the Stimulus Package
and the increased federal budget--a lot of missed opportunities going by the wayside...

It does not sound like they are taking your wise advice regarding how the money should be spent...

I would think that an administrator - particulalry a principal or vice principal being interviewed the first question asked would be what is your personal philosophy of education?

April 13, 2009
Plan to Change Student Lending Sets Up a Fight
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORNWASHINGTON — The private student lending industry and its allies in Congress are maneuvering to thwart a plan by President Obama to end a subsidized loan program and redirect billions of dollars in bank profits to scholarships for needy students.

The plan is the main money-saving component of Mr. Obama’s education agenda, which includes a sweeping overhaul of financial aid programs. The Congressional Budget Office says replacing subsidized loans made by private banks with direct government lending would save $94 billion over the next decade, money that Mr. Obama would use to expand Pell grants for the poorest students.

But the proposal has ignited one of the most fractious policy fights this year.

Because it would make spending on Pell grants mandatory, limiting Congressional control, powerful appropriators are balking at it. Republicans say the plan is proof that Mr. Obama is trying to vastly expand government. Democrats are divided, with lawmakers from districts where lenders are big employers already drawing battle lines.

At the same time, the private loan industry, which would have collapsed without a government rescue last year, has begun lobbying aggressively to save a program that has generated giant profits with very little risk.

“The administration has decided that it wants to capture the profits of federal student loans,” said Kevin Bruns, executive director of America’s Student Loan Providers, a trade group that is fighting Mr. Obama’s plan.

To press its case, the nation’s largest student lender, Sallie Mae, has hired two prominent lobbyists, Tony Podesta, whose brother, John, led the Obama transition, and Jamie S. Gorelick, a former deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration.

For lenders, the stakes are huge. Just last week, Sallie Mae reported that despite losing $213 million in 2008, it paid its chief executive more than $4.6 million in cash and stock and its vice chairman more than $13.2 million in cash and stock, including the use of a company plane. The company, which did not receive money under the $700 billion financial system bailout and is not subject to pay restrictions, also disbursed cash bonuses of up to $600,000 to other executives.

Sallie Mae said that executive compensation was lower in 2008 than 2007 and that the stock awards were worthless in the current market.

Critics of the subsidized loan system, called the Federal Family Education Loan Program, say private lenders have collected hefty fees for decades on loans that are risk-free because the government guarantees repayment up to 97 percent. With the government directly or indirectly financing virtually all federal student loans because of the financial crisis, the critics say there is no reason to continue a program that was intended to inject private capital into the education lending system.

Under the subsidized loan program, the government pays lenders like Citigroup, Bank of America and Sallie Mae, with both the subsidy and the maximum interest rate for borrowers set by Congress. Students are steered to the government’s direct program or to outside lenders, depending on their school’s preference.

Private lenders say they still provide valuable service, marketing, customer relations, billing, default prevention and collection of delinquent loans. The lenders say the budget savings could be achieved without ending their role and are pushing to keep the system in place, including an arrangement approved by Congress last year by which they are paid to originate loans but can resell them to the government.

Martha Holler, a spokeswoman for Sallie Mae, said the company wanted a compromise. “To be clear, there are those who are fighting to preserve the historic financing structure for federal student loans,” she wrote in an e-mail message following up on a telephone interview. “Sallie Mae is not among them. In fact, we support constructive alternatives that would generate a similar level of taxpayer savings to achieve the administration’s important goals.”

Lenders are also emphasizing the jobs they provide.

Sallie Mae’s chief executive, Albert L. Lord, held a town-hall-style meeting last week at the company’s loan center in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., with two Democrats, Senator Bob Casey and Representative Paul E. Kanjorski, to announce the return of 2,000 jobs that were sent overseas in 2007.

Mr. Lord, in his opening speech, insisted that Mr. Obama’s proposal offered new opportunities, but he said he would fight to keep the current system mostly intact.

“We can either meet or beat the budget savings that are in the president’s budget with the exact same system that we have got working now with maybe a few tweaks,” he said.

But to preserve a profitable role for private lenders and still achieve Mr. Obama’s savings seems extremely difficult if not impossible; initial projections put forward by Sallie Mae could reach only 82 percent of the president’s goal over five years.

Last year, to keep education financing from drying up, Congress expanded the government’s role, including the repurchase of loans, which Sallie Mae and some other lenders say should be mandatory going forward.

“When you add that all up, a very legitimate question to ask is why do we even need private lenders,” said Representative Timothy H. Bishop, Democrat of New York and a former provost of Southampton College.

For Mr. Bishop and many other education advocates, Mr. Obama’s plan to expand the existing direct loan program used by more than 1,500 schools is obvious and long overdue.

But the administration has a fight on its hands.

“The president’s proposal,” Representative Allen Boyd, Democrat of Florida, said in a floor speech, “could be detrimental to thousands of employees who serve in the current student loan industry throughout this country, 650 of which are located in Panama City, Florida.”

In some states, student loans are administered by quasi-governmental agencies that benefit the same as private lenders. To appeal to these states, the administration has proposed $500 million a year for financial literacy programs and other services the agencies provide.

Political opposition may be harder to overcome.

Representative Howard P. McKeon of California, the senior Republican on the education committee, said Democrats should not cut out lenders. “A government-run, one-size-fits-all program is not the answer,” he said.

But some lawmakers have no sympathy for an industry now kept afloat by taxpayers.

“If the banks complain that they are getting cut out,” said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, “too bad.”

At the Wilkes-Barre event, Mr. Lord of Sallie Mae acknowledged his industry’s reliance on the government. “I don’t see private capital financing student loans, certainly any time soon,” he said.

Even as lenders fight the president’s plan, Sallie Mae and others are bidding for work that will remain if it is adopted — contracts for loan servicing and other back office operations.

The president’s plan would use the money from direct lending to help increase Pell grants and make them mandatory, with annual increases tied to inflation, providing a much-needed measure of certainty for students. That would limit Congressional control over the grants, an idea appropriators are not keen on, but the White House and Congressional leaders say they are open to negotiation.

Anticipating a ferocious legislative battle, Representative George Miller, Democrat of California and chairman of the education committee, is weighing all options.

“Chairman Miller’s priority is to make our federal student loan programs as reliable, sustainable and efficient as possible for students, families and taxpayers,” his spokeswoman, Rachel Racusen, said.

Jonathan D. Glater contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/us/polit...agewanted=print

Little pre-K access for Latinos

Kids behind at start of school, advocates say
By Margaret Ramirez | Tribune reporter April 15, 2009 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...0,2425313.story
Inside Casa Infantil Head Start in Logan Square, teacher Janeth Medellin called on her students to form a circle and then started singing a bilingual version of the "Good Morning" song.

"What day is today?" she asked 4-year-old Gustavo. "¿Qué día es hoy?"

When he hesitated, she touched his shoulder and said, "It's OK to answer in Spanish." With that, he shouted in English, "Monday!"

By using bilingual preschool curriculum and providing financial assistance, the Casa Infantil Head Start program is confronting one of the most debated issues in early childhood education: how to raise academic levels of low-income, Latino children.



Latino families with young children constitute a significant portion of the nation's population and future workforce, but several studies show those children are less likely to enroll in early education programs because of various barriers including language, cost, transportation and a shortage of pre-kindergarten spots in poor neighborhoods. For those and other reasons, Latino children lag well behind white children in reading and math skills when they start kindergarten.

Last month, President Barack Obama noted the stubborn gap between white students compared with Latinos and African-Americans, and said the key to raising academic achievement is investing in early childhood education programs—what he called "the first pillar" of education reform. Obama said $5 billion in stimulus funding would be used to grow Head Start programs, expand child care and do more for children with special needs. The president also called for Early Learning Challenge Grants to reward initiatives that raise the quality of pre-K programs.

"Too many in the Republican Party have opposed new investments in early education despite compelling evidence of its importance," Obama said in a speech to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. "This isn't just about keeping an eye on our children, it's about educating them."

But debates cut different ways on the best way to improve the underfunded, fragmented early childhood education system. In Illinois, a hodgepodge of early childhood education options exist, including federally funded Head Start, state-funded Preschool for All, private schools and center-based programs operated by non-profit organizations.

Although the reasons for low attendance among Hispanics in preschool programs have not been firmly established, a major factor is a lack of programs in poor neighborhoods. A recent study by the National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics surveyed programs in Los Angeles and Chicago and found an overall shortage of pre-kindergarten slots in Hispanic neighborhoods.

Sylvia Puente, executive director for the Latino Policy Forum, said the shortage of preschool programs in Chicago stems from demographic shifts where neighborhoods dominated by older whites became populated by immigrants and a baby boom of younger Latino families. To discuss the issue, the Latino Policy Forum gathered leading educators, school administrators and child-care providers at National-Louis University last month.

"What has happened in the city is that you saw the older white ethnic enclaves become Latino. So, there was limited infrastructure of facilities because it was an older, aging demographic. As the Latino population has moved into those communities, there hasn't been the accompanied capital infusion to build space," Puente said.

Some Chicago child-care providers who primarily serve Latinos said many families are unaware that programs exist or don't understand the value of early childhood education. Others said enrollment requirements often become a barrier for low-income families. Celena Roldán, director of child care for Erie Neighborhood House, which serves about 400 children at four centers, said income verification for some child-care programs disqualifies immigrants who often live together in one home but don't share income.

"Sometimes you have multiple incomes going to one household because there are so many people living there and it appears the family is getting a large income. That's usually not the case," Roldán said.

Even when programs exist in impoverished neighborhoods, early childhood experts said other obstacles remain that delay learning for Latino children. Language is perhaps the most significant issue for recent immigrants, increasing the demand for bilingual teachers that surpasses the low supply.

Parental interaction also is critical, said Eugene Garcia, vice president at Arizona State University and a member of Obama's education transition team. Yet research shows that parental interaction is less likely to happen in Latino homes where both parents work full time and have not completed high school.

"We need interaction in the home," said Garcia, chair of the National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics. "Latino children are behind in communicating in the complex way that schools demand."

In response, some social service agencies in Chicago have developed strategies specifically designed to encourage more parental interaction in early childhood education. Casa Central, the social service agency that runs Casa Infantil, also offers a home-based Head Start program for recent immigrants. During weekly visits, a preschool teacher comes to the home to review lessons with the child while guiding the parent on how to participate.

"The home-based program is really about showing the parent how to be their child's first educator," said Ellen Chavez, director of early childhood development programs for Casa Central, which also helps African-American, Chinese and Polish children. "Even if you don't speak English, there are things you can teach your child to prepare them for school."

Ana Solano, who immigrated from Mexico five years ago, was unaware of the importance of early childhood education until the home-based visits began for her 4-year-old daughter, Ana. She said she immediately noticed a remarkable difference between Ana and her older son, Juan Carlos, who had struggled in kindergarten. "I just thought he would pick everything up in school. With Ana, I see how much it helps and how much better off she will be," she said.

As the Obama administration prepares to release more details of its education plan, providers are hopeful it will recognize the different models needed to bolster academic achievement among Latino children. "We have limited dollars, so the focus is on quality and prioritizing," said Reyna Hernandez, research associate with the Latino Policy Forum. "We want to make sure that whatever the baseline is, that it takes into consideration these needs of Latino children."

maramirez@tribune.com