Monday, January 29, 2007

Education plan works; it should be renewed

Original Article - few articles that hold the positive view of NCLB.

Summary goes here!
This echo my view of Jan. 8, 2007.

Nationwide, lotteries pay for far more than education

Original Article - Good general info on what lotteries money has been used for.

Summary goes here!

Lottery may seem to be a good thing in funding so many public need. However, it is also a social problem. People buying lottery ticket are expressing the un-happiness and the chances view of the life. The value of hardworking ethic is washed away and the willingness to pay for the social cost is low. If we think those projects funded by lottery is necessary, it could very well be come out of the regular budget.

Friday, January 19, 2007

Toward Integrative Learning

Original Article

Summary goes here!
There is a distiction between the hard-cored inter-field training and that of team work training. The team work training should be consided as K12 courses, while the research courses are not.

==== Scribbles ===
Inter-fields training is interesting and which is important and intrigering and can inspire ideas. This is like the afternoon tea parties. However, I always cauctious about team-work. A team work is good only if members are good. A team-work concept have been over-emphasised in US education and society to a point. At school, teacher are likely to assign teams without talk about what make a good team. Students are likely to be in a team based on friendships. Kids don't understand the concept that friendship don't have to be suffered just becaused they are not doing things togather. Some don't understand or care about the importance of the out come.

A team is work if people respect what they don't know. People exchange and query each other. Logical and open mind is needed. These training should be considered K12 training.

However, the teaching of repecting each other should be considered entrance level courses. This should not be confused with the hard-cored inter-field research courses.

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Cracking Down on the Unaccredited

Original Article - Read the first 2 comments. Also the one on CA state law by Robert.

Summary goes here!
Yes. That's why we need objective accreditation. Time have changed, we need re-think about our higher education. What's our goal and what we try to achieve and what's the best use of resources. Of cause, in the end, only people truely interested in research will hold the higherest academic honor, be it a Ph.D. or else.

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

on The Report from Commission on the Future of Higher Education - working on

Another Front on Accreditation - Propose change in federal rules (2007/01/17)
Changing the Report, After the Vote
Regulatory Activism? - Inside Higher Ed
Carrying Out the Commission’s Ideas - Inside Higher Ed
Final draft -
Statement by American Council on Education President David Ward - ACE statement (2006/08/10)

  • A short statement that given credit to the commission. An important movement to force the commision to continue improving problems in the report.
AAC&U Statement on Spellings Commission Draft Report - AACU comments (2006/08/10)
  1. There are good points but sound self-serving from time to time.
  2. The draft does seems to under state the importance of faculty and the efforts that's going on.
  3. The draft may, like AACU stated, lower the importance of researches in institutions. On the other hand, research may be not in higher ed customer's mind! The report put more pressure on customer need - which explain why for-profit institution are on the rise! Institutions simply need recognize the customer need. Institutions can still have their agenda, but derive resources from different form. Institution will also need to find customers of their agenda - say, companies heavy on researches like IBM, Microsoft etc.
18 Yesses, 1 Major No - Insided Higher Ed (2006/08/11)
  1. The article is well written. It shows a lot of inside actions of commisioners and it shows commisioners' true intension. With the tone of chairman Miller, I believe the intetion of the commision are well funded.
  2. See the comment of Sheldon
Whodunit? Chairman Miller, That’s Who - Inside Higher Ed (2006/08/09)
- See comments by The Masked Poster
The Making of a Majority - Inside Higher Ed (2006/08/07)
A Near-Final Report? - Inside Higher Ed (2006/08/04)
Beyond Playing Defense
- Higher Ed. associations begin to embrasss the issues
Pell Proposal’s Price and Politics
The Spellings Plan
The Sounds of Conciliation
Will Anyone Listen?
Charles Miller Unshackled

Summary goes here!
A strange way to come up with report:
- list controvasial agenda
- stimulate discussion
- finalize it

Is this a good or bad way to proceed?

Friday, January 12, 2007

Rising costs make climb to higher education steeper

Original Article - very well written

Summary goes here!
This is a big problem and not many people have solutions.

For inistitution to continue raising the price, there must be enough demand for it. This demand are generated by the reality and the desire of parents in sending their kids to college. The reality is that: "College degree are minimum requirement for entry level job". Part of this reality is caused by the low quality of our K12 system. Suppose, we can improve the quality of our K12 system, it is very possible, the high school graduate can handle entry level jobs. If we can solve this, we have solve half the problem. But, of cause, you are going to questioning that isn't this will produce more qualified students for college and pushing the cost even higher? Indeed, it does produce more qualified students for college. But. As a country, we will only benifit from this.

The second part of the problem call for a different approach. We have to understand that, in the past, only

Let's think about this from several points of view.

1. Why can colleges continue to increase the price and without worrying about low enrollment? Isn't this what you expected if you raise the price out of propotion in the market?
The possible answer to this is that 1) the demand is so high, there simply not enough colleges to go around. 2) All institutions are raising prices and there are simply no choices.

In general, community college is the most affordable and, in recent years, we see students choose to start their college education from community college because of it's affordability. However, in general, we do see the increasing demand on bachalor degree which.

Defeat for For-Profit Model

Original Article - At this moment, it simply that the administration is yeild to the traditional faculty. There isn't any indication of the drawback of the for-profit model. Compare Edward Winslow's comments to those of Academic Professors.

Summary goes here!
The goal and plan of U of Illinois is thoughtful. A good starting point.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Have You Heard About "Tuitioning"?

Original Article - Propose state money to each kid and let competition take it course.

Summary goes here!
Competition is good. However, before that can happen, a quality check have to be set. Without quality checks, people will fall into traps. In this case, there can be cases that only sitter service is provided with low cost while nothing is taught to students. Family can simply claim day schooling while use the state reimbursement for other things.

Automatic Access or Raised Retention?

Original Article - UK try raise the admission standard

Summary goes here!

A question that have to be anwsered in the content of how to best use the resources to advance the society! The debate centered on raising the status of A university is not a good one.

A state have to set it's goal in the interested on the whole state and they have to answer questions like:
1. Do we need a advanced institution to keep our economic grow?
1.1 To what extend we like this institution to extend?
1.2 How much resources can we afford to support this institution?

2. What other kind of inistitutions we need in addition to the advanced research institution?

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Three Cheers for High Tuition

Original Article - interesting point in that more scholar are needed in college because of the knowledge expansion.

Summary goes here!
Q: Who should paid for the knowledge?
At this point in time, open souce depend on people with job valoteer in posting the info. When other people learn about it, they could become even more knowledgable depend on that person's ability. That person may or may not share what he had learn. Even though, the more people that knows, the more likely the knowledge been passed down in cheaper price. Do we have to be a professor to process those knowledge? Maybe not! People in the related industry can do so. However, do we need some public funded professors so that public can ensure knowledge get passed down?

The Incredibles

Original Article

Summary goes here!
The bottom line - most US K12 isn't doing it's job.
The work ethic do all the talkings.
I don't expect all the kids doing that. But I do think a lot of other kids can do much better.
These kids are incredible. But on the other hand, with the advance in living condition and the resources, they SHOULD doing better than our generation and this is what US should shooting for when we still have the advantage of left wealth. This is how we keep ahead and not to afraid of the competition from the abroad.

Monday, January 08, 2007

on No Child Left Behind

How Bush education law has changed our schools
Bush left too many good education ideas behind
Report card mixed on education law

Summary goes here!
It is un-questionable that the law definitly changed the US K12 education. It brought needed attention to the topic and make it a hot debate item and that is great!

It is all agreed that test scores have gone up. People can question that if the test score measuring the real learning, but there is no doubt that given the goal, the law does effectively moving the education toward that goal. So, in theory, by refining the goal, the law will, in general, move US K12 education toward that better goal.

It is true that if we focus in certain goals, some other thing will be lost. But we also have to realize that that is the norm since everyone has only 24 hours a day. We simply have to make sure the goal we set is appropriate in that it is definitly the needed basic. I am not saying that poetry is not good, but that definitly is not a surviving need.

The law had put a lot of pressure on schools and teachers which isn't a really bad thing. At least it reminded schools of their responsibilities. However, we do need realize that, parents and students should do their parts too. A big question is to establish the right balances between that duty of parents/students and that of the schools.

Seeking the right balances is very important as we all know the learning did not stop at school. The NCLB may be able to force the high scores, but it has no guaranty of suitable contribution to the society. To really produce a responsible citizen of the future, we need make responsibility training the main part of the education. This can only be achieved by making sure parents and students taking up their responsibilities right from the begining.

Schools and teachers are responsible to provide needed help to students/parents, but students and parents are responsible in making progresses. A pure state funded tutoring is a bad idea. A state compensated tutoring is a better idea. Parents/students have to be made to evaluate the situation and decided on if they can achive the progress with minimum cost. People have to understand that charity is due only if they do their part.