U.S. Universities Not So Hot

U.S. Universities Not So Hot

Discussions of the U.S. education system have routinely praised its universities and bemoaned the state of K-12 schooling, but a commission appointed by education secretary Margaret Spellings is finding that all is not well in higher education. Although the best U.S. universities are the best in the world, quality is not universal.

The draft states that “American higher education has become what, in the business world, would be called a mature enterprise: increasingly risk-averse, frequently self-satisfied, and unduly expensive…. It has yet to successfully confront the impact of globalization, rapidly evolving technologies, an increasingly diverse and aging population, and an evolving marketplace characterized by new needs and new paradigms.” Among the commission’s findings:

Inadequate preparation and financial barriers prevent too many young people from completing college.
One reason for the rising cost of higher education is that universities pay too little attention to efficiency and productivity.
The overall quality of student learning is inadequate and declining.
Although scholars value transparency, precision, and rigor in their academic work, the higher education system does not apply these standards to the university enterprise.

The commission has posted a draft version of its report for comment. The final version is likely to be more temperate than the draft, so take a look at the draft while it is available. You’ll find it at http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports.html.

Commission members include former University of Michigan president James Duderstadt, former MIT president Chuck Vest, IBM executive vice president Nicholas Donofrio, former North Carolina governor James B. Hunt, Jr., and Education Trust director Kati Haycock. You can find more information about the commission at
http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/index.html.

A Fresh Approach to School Improvement

A Fresh Approach to School Improvement

The 100% Solution, a bold new approach to education policy that was launched with a June 26 op-ed by former education secretary Rod Paige in the New York Times, brought together an unusual coalition of sponsors from across the political spectrum. When the combative conservative William Bennett and former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta occupy common ground, it should attract some attention.

Education policy has become a prominent concern for U.S. voters, and the quality of science and math education has attracted particular attention. Everyone who has tried to improve U.S. public education had discovered the difficulty of introducing change and ensuring quality. The 100% Solution does not provide a recipe for the perfect school; it proposes a radically different way of funding schools designed to make them more responsive to student needs and more capable of adopting new practices that have been proven successful. The underlying principle is simple: Fund students, not schools.

The total amount of funding allocated to educating a student would follow that student to whatever public school, charter or traditional, the student chooses to attend. Under a weighted student funding formula, low-income students and those with special needs would be allocated more money because it requires more to give them an adequate education. Conservatives like the plan because it gives students and families more freedom in choosing a school, and liberals like the recognition that disadvantaged students deserve more resources.

As Fordham Institute president Chester E. Finn, Jr. (one of the forces behind the proposal) remarked, “Weighted student funding isn’t a complete answer to every challenge that public schools face but it will eliminate the biggest funding disparities, foster equity, empower school leaders, and catalyze school choice.” It will also irritate teachers unions, many school board members, current public school administrators, powerful legislators, and a host of others whose personal interests are often in conflict with the best interests of students.

In spite of its bipartisan imprimatur, the proposal might be a political flop. The inertial of the education industry is a formidable obstacle. But the impetus behind the proposal deserves to be understood. See for yourself at:

www.100percentsolution.org

Climate Extremes

Climate Extremes

Monday’s Wall Street Journal (6/26/06)included an op-ed by MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen repeating his argument that alarmists are overstating the scientific case that human activity is causing climate change. In Tuesday’s New York Times (6/27/06), William J. Broad reports on the growing respectability of geoengineering strategies for combating climate change.

Lindzen’s latest essay is a response to a comment by Al Gore in his new film that “the debate in the scientific community is over.” Lindzen is right—and Gore would probably agree—that this is an absurd statement. There is no scientific debate, there is a continuing scientific study of the climate. Although Lindzen has often raised reasonable objections to the way some people have characterized the state of climate science, in this case he is off base. He rightly criticizes statements about scientific certainty and consensus that go beyond what science can ever provide, but he implicitly sets a standard for the level of consensus necessary to justify action to slow climate change that is unreasonably high. There is no absolute certainty, but the weight of the evidence is growing enough to justify some action.

Broad highlights one of the seeming inconsistencies of those who are calling for action to combat climate change. Many environmentalists, who describe global warming as an environmental threat of unprecedented scale, are still unwilling to consider nuclear power as one of the tools that could be used to reduce the use of fossil fuels. The majority of scientists and engineers do see nuclear energy as an effective tool in the fight against climate change. But both scientists and environmentalists have been reluctant to consider geoengineering—ambitious proposals to tinker with the oceans, clouds, or atmospheric chemistry—as a practical response.

As the weight of the evidence for human-induced climate change grows and efforts to slow the production of greenhouse gases founder, scientists are beginning to talk more openly about geoengineering options. As Broad reports, this is far from a groundswell for actually implementing any of these strategies, but it is a significant change to be willing merely to discuss them. One of the most influential voices calling for more open discussion is atmospheric chemist Ralph J. Cicerone, the president of the National Academy of Sciences. Considering the growing evidence that the climate is warming and the possibility of dramatic, nonlinear changes in climate, it seems foolhardy not to be researching and discussing emergency geoengineering options.

As the geoengineering advocates point out, we are already inadvertently engineering the climate system. Although most people are predisposed to favor a “natural” approach that aims to limit human interference, it’s a little late for that. The planet’s climate is already in part a human creation. Of course, geoengineering involves serious risks, and we may never develop any strategy that deserves to be implemented. But research and discussion seems wise in light of the potential effects of climate change.